text:
So, marriage equality is all the rage these days in Providence. Who knows if Divine Providence in the Heavens and throughout the Earth would be inclined to agree, or would decline to permit such a standard.
Governor Lincoln Chafee runs a state with the highest unemployment, the worst business climate, and the most pressing pension obligations in the country, and he wants to let people of the same sex tie the knot? Why not undo the heavy burdens marriage in the first place by wholly removing the government from holy matrimony? Besides, tying the knot is not a prerogative of the government. Marriage does not belong to the state, and there is no state less qualified to discuss commitment about anything that Rhode Island. The Ocean State political class has not been faithful to her share-holders, her taxpayers, and even the many people who are barely making it on whatever they can get from public thievery or private charity.
Marriage, like the rearing of our children or the feeding of men and women, does not belong to the government. The first time that civil unions were instituted ("civil union" is a euphemism since any growth or encroachment of the government into a higher institution is neither civil nor unified), the Prussian "Iron Chancellor" Otto von Bismarck created it because he was fighting against the political power of the Catholic church in the German states. In a domestic policy move which historians have termed "Kulturkampf", or "culture war", Bismarck wanted to remove the private authority of the separate Catholic authority over the unions of men and women. As a matter course, the notion of two men or two women marrying each other was unimaginable in the mid-to-late 1800's
Unlike the Catholic priests in the German states, Protestant ministers were paid by the German princes or the regional governments. Hence, there was no real religious liberty in Germany for decades, aside from the Catholic churches, where congregants did not respect the religious preeminence in their prince or their king. Instead, they regarded the traditions of their church communities and the preeminence of the Pope. Bismarck would not brook any dissent in his planned unified Germany, so he required that Prussian couples receive a license from the state in order to "tie the knot".
Bismarck wanted to subjugate the Catholic Church as a crowning achievement for the unification of all German states to the Prussian Crown. The Catholic Southern German regions resisted unification, in part because the power base and legacy of regional rule remained strong. Only after the Franco-Prussian War, which pitted an easily-slighted France against the German war-machine, did Prussian Prime Minister Bismarck establish the requisite alliances to bring together all the German states under one federal government. Just to rub it in, King Wilhelm of Prussia was crowned Kaiser Wilhelm in the "Hall of Mirrors" in Versailles. Following this unification ceremony, civil unions spread throughout the remaining German states.
Bismarck's legacy of government overreach into the private sacrament of marriage continued in the United States. Managing-and-controlling progressives wanted to track the health of individual couples getting married. This insulting policy proceeded from the notion that a man and a woman were so incompetent, that they would blindly marry a blood relative or a spouse with a devastating venereal disease. This nanny-state intervention held a shot gun to the institution, and so marriage licenses were required from the early 1900's to this day.
Today, the vocal gay minority wants to change the definition of marriage and force private institutions to recognize their diverse unions. Another bullying power grab which abuses the power of the state, gay marriage (and straight marriage, for that matter) should not be the battleground of today's culture wars. Rhode Island founder Roger Williams established his colony on toleration and religious liberty. The state's requirement that all unions be defined, determined, and dedicated by the government is another step away from religious liberty and toward state-sponsored tyranny in the name of "marriage equality" (a malapropism, since a good marriage is not about equality, but mutual submission between partners).
Leaders in the Providence statehouse have no right, reason, nor respect to play Providence in the state of Rhode Island or in anyone's house. Rhode Island leaders should be wedded to divorcing the citizens from the state's outrageous pension obligations instead of stepping to who marries whom.The Ocean State's conservative communities, of which there are more than most politicians or media elites realize, and the Rhode Island GOP should demand that their government respect the institution of marriage and leave it alone. They have no authority to pronounce men and women "man and wife", since the leaders in Providence will have to pronounce their state "indebted and bankrupt" very soon because of their inability to keep their vows to maintain the soundness and stability of Rhode Island.
5th Warder
7:15 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
You need to proofread and edit before you post.
Also, Roger Williams is a bad example to use as a reason society should restrict marriage to what the Catholic church and other conservative faiths dictate. Williams was driven out of Massachusetts by a bunch of hardcore, right-wing religious fundamentalists who wanted nothing more than to have everyone obey laws based THEIR particular interpretation of the Bible. In Providence, he was able to live his life and worship according to his own conscience and what HE felt the Bible instructed, free from the dictates of overbearing and intrusive religious zealots. Furthermore, he advocated that everyone else be able to worship freely as well. So to use the concept of religious liberty to further your argument is disingenuous. No gay people are ever going to tell you how to worship your god, or force you to marry a dude.
Finally if you're going to go down the road of claiming that the government of Rhode Island is too rife with corruption and ineptitude to take up the cause of marriage equality, you should look carefully at your church. Not to cast stones, but I noticed another article this morning where a Catholic priest in Warwick resigned after allegations of sexual misconduct. Call me crazy but I notice a trend. It seems like a lot of priests have been doing bad things with boys. So... according to your logic, perhaps Bishop Tobin has a bit too much on his plate to be morally qualified to opine on marriage equality.
Ted Geisel
8:13 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"If you non-Catholic Christians are upset, well, just have your Pope issue a reponse. Oh, that's right, you don't have a Pope because your faith is defective. Sorry, Catholicism is clearly superior. Don't believe me? Name one Protestant denomination that could afford a $660 million sexual abuse settlement. I think that Lord has spoken on this one."
Arthur Christopher Schaper
3:04 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"Also, Roger Williams is a bad example to use as a reason society should restrict marriage to what the Catholic Church and other conservative faiths dictate."
I am not speaking for any one religious institution or even religion in general. I do not approve of the massive cover-ups in the Archdioceses across the globe. That is a great evil, enough that men and women will stop running to priests and believe in the High Priest (Hebrews 4: 15).
The fault lies with the fact that spiritual growth gets codified into religion. Jesus Christ, the Bible, and His Work have nothing to do with religion.
Roger Williams would be appalled, I would believe, to see that his colony turned into a state with massive debt and pension problems, along with a growing exodus of residents.
It sounds to me that you are hostile about religion. That is your choice. I am upset that state leaders are not leading their state.
Thanks for your time.
7:25 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I couldn't agree more. The Government is out of control authorizing marriage and should be stopped. In reality, most don't believe in marriage anyway, current statistics prove that. Between the gays and the public employees, we are doomed.
Craig Cameron
8:36 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Nice one Ted...the gays will doom us all. If we allow them to have the same rights as everyone else, to be able to vist with and make medical decisions for their partner, to be treated fully as equals under the laws of the state...we are all doomed.
I think the only thing "dooming" us is our intolerance and our lack of a well-educated and informed, enlightened populous. Certainly not "the gays" or "public employees" (like teachers, firefighters, etc.).
Naome Lixes
8:37 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"Between the gays and the public employees, we are doomed."
Why is that, because wearing plaid with stripes and an ascot won't be allowed
at the DMV? You know who's fighting gay marriage? The insurance companies.
Funding for the organized opposition comes from those facing a larger pool
of dependents and beneficiaries. It's about the boardroom, not the bedroom.
8:51 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I tend to forget my disgust and sarcasm can't be conveyed thru this medium. I am a gay man in a relationship of 16yrs. I am also a career firefighter in Rhode Island for the past 18. I tend to hear the arguments of some who believe firefighters are scamming the system and also those who wish to see gay rights squashed. I never thought I would read an article or blog that portrays gays as the reason for financial ruin of a state. I apologize for my poor delivery of worded anger towards this blog.
Renee Cwiek
9:04 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
His post was dripping with sarcasm. You really couldn't read into it?
9:39 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I almost typed a snarky response but then thought....surely he's kidding. I almost missed the sarcasm too. ;)
Arthur Christopher Schaper
2:59 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Thanks for writing.
The core problem which has created this coalition of ideologies is the Democratic Party apparatus.
The Progressive movement has been all about growing the size of government to regulate more aspects of people's lives.
One way to ensure this expansion of power is to guarantee more "rights" to different interest groups, which then expands rules, regulations, and the size of government, because the government must enforce these "rights".
It's not people who live a homosexual lifestyle nor the public employees, but the union leaders and the party bosses who take the grievance of one party and exploit it to give themselves more power.
Thanks for sharing.
3:24 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"One way to ensure this expansion of power is to guarantee more "rights" to different interest groups, which then expands rules, regulations, and the size of government, because the government must enforce these "rights"."
Yes you've got us all figured out. We don't want equality. We want bigger government! You're a friggin' genius.
Ericka Forman
6:58 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The scary part is that the Mr. Schaper and the rest of his buds actually believe this bull he just spewed. Other that trying to get his distorted vision of marriage published, he also got a chance to rant on other issues involving the state that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The issue of 2 people loving each other and wanting the same legal rights as their strait counterparts. As things stand now, without a legal marriage license, from the government, couples cannot have a voice in medical decisions for each other, health insurance is a problem and pension and social security rights are not equal. I got a marriage license from the town to get married, it is a legal document. Gay people should have the same right to the same legal document.
Nard Glimrod
8:03 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"I Know Pronounce You"
Editor, shmeditor, apparently.
Renee Cwiek
9:08 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I can't even believe you wrote a whole blog about this. People have the right to marry whomever they want. There shouldn't even have to be a discussion, vote, debate, etc. about it. If you're too ignorant to realize that and have to somehow work in the financial situation the state is in to validate your point somehow, then I feel sorry for you.
1:16 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Renee. Why are you so bitter? I am always amused when reading comments that if someone has a different opinion on a subject they resort to defending their view as the only view, but stating no facts to defend their sentiment.
Calling him ignorant, shows your intelligence.
Renee Cwiek
7:32 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Bitter? No. Wanting all people to be treated equally? Yes. I don't feel the need to defend my views on The Patch. That hardly makes me unintelligent. But I am amused when people resort to calling someone else out and feels the need to use insults to do it.
Shows your intelligence.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
6:30 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
I can believe that you resort to condescending remarks.
You have nothing credible to argue with.
If you disagree with the style and the subtance of the post, then that is your choice.
If all you have is insults and attacks, then truly you have nothing worthwhile to share.
Thanks for writing.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
6:31 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Renee Cwiek:
"I don't feel the need to defend my views on The Patch."
She wrote this comment because she is unable to defend her views.
Renee Cwiek
6:56 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Nice try trying to stir the pot again a little Arthur. Unfortunately, I don't take bait that easily.
Leave RI
9:10 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"Why is that, because wearing plaid with stripes and an ascot won't be allowed
at the DMV? You know who's fighting gay marriage?..
I agree.. it's not the cover of the book..
Naome Lixes
7:25 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Poor thing, not everyone can look good in slingbacks.
Even Terrance Stamp and Alice Cooper stuck to flats.
9:59 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Sooo...because our state has financial issues, gay marriage shouldn't be addressed? Or any marriage, for that matter? Under what circumstances would it be ok with you to end discrimination? Your whole argument is ridiculous.
What gives you or anyone else the right to pronounce the "definition of marriage?" Obviously your definition is not universally agreed upon - otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Marriage was around long before Christianity. Christians like to conveniently forget that. The "institution" started as a social contract between families usually to consolidate wealth. Religion didn't enter into the equation millenniums later.
Since church and state are supposed to be separate and we don't all share the same religion why does the government care what the religious say about marriage? The reality is certain laws regarding spousal benefits are predicated on couples being married and until that changes, the only way to give gay couples the same rights as straight married couples is to allow them to marry.
We need stop legislating discrimination. Gays should have the same rights as everyone else, period. If you have a problem with that, chances are you have no gay people in your life. Regardless, it doesn't effect you so why do you care?
10:29 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Renee and others,
This guy is a full-time blogger from Torrance, CA. See his profile. He does not live in RI. He blogs from his computer about issues all over the US, whether he lives in that community or not.
Renee Cwiek
10:32 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Awesome. He's writing about a state he doesn't even live in. Perhaps he should worry about himself and his own state instead of ours.
Leave RI
12:28 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I believe he's of the Moron church....and even in Mass and New Jersey Really?
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a life-long resident of the South Bay. He currently lives in Torrance. His interests include issues timeless and timely -- political, cultural, moral, and spiritual. He is a teacher and a writer whose letters and editorials have appeared locally as well as nationally, including the Daily Breeze, the Los Angeles Jewish Observer, and even papers in New Jersey and Massachusetts. He is also an avid blogger:
Arthur Christopher Schaper
3:11 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Of course I blog from a computer - - how else would I?
I care about the issues pressing on the state of Rhode Island because they remind me of the growing battle brewing in this country: The Public Sector Union Elites vs. Everyone else.
Did you hear about the RI teacher who walked off his good paying job? I felt really bad for him: where was the union to help him?
I am also a great fan of founder Roger Williams. This state, this country deserves to witness a resurgence of liberty, one which he helped to foment.
3:18 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"Public Sector Union Elites"? Are you referring to those in a union such as teachers, police, and fire fighters who clearly hold all the cards? Or their unions, who are the ones controlling wall street? Are they also responsible for the economic downturn? And they're against everyone else....who is everyone exactly?
You are seriously delusional. Go peddle your crazy somewhere else.
Renee Cwiek
3:58 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
RI has union elites? LOL I love west coast people. Really.
Just Another Taxpayer
10:44 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Why is this essay listed under Local Voices when the author lives out of state?. Maybe one of the mods can answer my question
Leave RI
12:35 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
If you open the authors' photo and utter the phrase "french fried taters mmmm" it all comes together
Arthur Christopher Schaper
2:53 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Leave RI:
You are funny! ( I do like tater tots, by the way)
Of course you are attacking me, because the points which I have made are right on, but you are unable and unwilling to understand or undertake to refute them.
I wear your scorn as a badge of honor!
Thanks again!
2:59 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Actually....you're being "attacked" because your points are ridiculous and bigoted. But believe what you want....it sounds like that's the only way you can function.
Renee Cwiek
3:46 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
oh please....you're hardly being attacked. You want to write on a RI blog, expect people to disagree with you. Maybe people in CA don't disagree with each other as often as people in RI?
Robert E
1:32 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
It's time for people to stop using the bible as an excuse for bigotry. Bigotry and Hatred wrapped in Religion are still Bigotry and Hatred. Religion enables the bigoted and hateful to believe that their bigotry and hatred is virtue. Don't make excuses for homophobia that you wouldn't make for racism. Just imagine a Christian saying:
I have a deep conviction in the authority of the Bible. And the Bible clearly approves of slavery, and in fact commands it in some cases (Exodus 22:3; Deuteronomy 20:10-11, 14). Furthermore, I belive, based on Genesis 9:25-27, that the descendants of Ham are to be the slaves of the descendants of Shem and Japheth, and after deep reflection I've concluded that Africans are the modern-day descendants of Ham. So please don't call my support for enslaving Africans bigotry. It's not. It is a working out of deep convictions.
Bigots will be just as free to hate same sex marriage when it's legal as they did when it was not. The difference is that nobody will be legally obligated to give a crap what they think.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
2:51 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Robert E:
Thanks for writing.
The Old Testament was written to present types and shadows of one person: Jesus Christ. The Bible speaks of Him above all things.
When you rightly divide the Word of God (2 Timothy 2: 15), a lot of these issues will make more sense.
Granted, too many people have taken isolated passages out of context to distort scripture, but that is not God's fault, nor the Bible's fault.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
3:18 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"Renee Cwiek
2:55 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Thanks for your concern"
Renee: You command a great deal of respect.
Your name, by the way, means "Reborn."
You and every other commiitted Rhode Island can help your state be "reborn" from debt, deficits, and dysfunction.
Since the Dem-PSU (public sector union) lobby does not listen to voters, talk to GOP leaders.
Call Raymond McKay:
(401) 487-2514
He is the head of the Republican Assembly. Get a grassroots revival going on in RI.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
2:54 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I am "a taxpayer" like you.
Take back your state!
Tell "Linc" to make the right connections in the statehouse: stop spending money that RI does not have, and stop sucking up to Public Sector Union elites.
Robert E
4:06 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
"Take back your state!" exactly it's our state not ypurs so mind your own buisness. You now nothing about the State of Rhode Islan and Providence Plantations You talk about Roger Williams founding Rhode Island try again. Roger Williams founded the colony of Providence Plantations not Rhode Island. Roger Williams had nothing to do with the Colony of Rhode Island. The Colony of Rhode Island was founded in 1638 by Anne Hutchinson, John Clarke, William Hutchinson (husband of Anne Hutchinson), John Coggeshall, William Aspinwall, Samuel Wilbore, John Porter, John Sanford, Edward Hutchinson, Jr., Thomas Savage, William Dyre, William Freeborn, Phillip Shearman, John Walker, Richard Carder, William Baulston, Edward Hutchinson, Sr., Henry Bull, Randall Holden, Thomas Clarke, John Johnson, William Hall, and John Brightman. When you get your facts straight you can come back and try again but I get the impression facts don't cooncern you much.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
3:06 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The matter is not bigotry, but priorities.
I was permitted this forum, and I choose to use it.
CA will become RI in a matter of years if people do not address the pension obligations which are crippling our states.
If two men or two women choose to live together and call that a marriage, that is their choice. The of RI to get caught up in gay marriage when the state is having a "not so gay" time managing its money or properly executing its basic services. That is a huge disconnect from reality, one which needs to be exposed and remedied..
All of this cat-calling about bigotry is in itself bigoted, if I may be so bold.
Stop attacking people. Demand that your state respects your right to live and breathe and have your being.
Providence is more than a state capital, you know.
Thanks for sharing
Renee Cwiek
3:38 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Renee: You command a great deal of respect.
Yes. I do.
Your name, by the way, means "Reborn."
I'm fully aware of what my name means.
If you want to write about our state, our unions, our capitol, or governor, please feel free. We Rhode Islanders will sit back and bow to your ultimate knowledge of our state. I'm sorry, but you come off as a bigot in your blog. Calling you out on your bigotry does not make us bigots. It makes us Rhode Islanders. We're passionate about what we believe in. And most of do believe in equality in every aspect of life.
Ted Geisel
3:42 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
As a Christian and a conservative I am embarressed. If you read the bible and think to yourself, I need to make it my mission to make sure there is no gay marriage in the US then you have a problem. Either pretend that Jesus was just as bigoted and selfish as you are, or admit that he commanded us to love, serve, and show compassion for everyone, without condition. Then admit you just don't want to do it...
Arthur Christopher Schaper
5:06 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Thank you, Ted!
Jesus Christ grants something better than mere acceptance. He gives us the gift of righteousness, and keeps on giving it (Romans 5: 17)
I submit that homosexual conduct is a choice, and a bad one.
I do not submit to the notion that people are "born gay." That argument runs against biology and genetics. If people were born "gay", their parents would have to be gay, but if the parents gave birth to a child, then they were never gay to begin with.
Homosexual conduct hurts a person's body, with higher incidence of disease and death, and these statistics come from countries where homosexuality is openly accepted and accommodated (The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, and so on)
Having written this point, I do not believe in attacking or shaming people for whom they sleep with. Shame does not break people free. I also do not believe that criminalizing homosexual conduct is wise or prudent, just as criminalizing alcohol created more problems than it solved.
I also do not believe that God's wrath will fall on this nation, or any other, because of homosexual conduct. Bad consequences arise from poor choices on their own. God's wrath was fully exhausted at the Cross, and every man (or woman) who receives his grace can be set free from anything.
The government has no business telling anyone whom they may be married to or not. I have spoken with conservatives who share this view: marriage is a private matter.
Robert E
5:24 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
What right do you have to force your religious views on others. If your religion does not support same sex marrage then your church does not have to perform them but you have no right to extend that to people who are not menbers of you religion. I am not a Christian so your collection of myths mean nothing to me. Keep your narrowmindedness to your self. The problem I have with the Christians is not the religion but the fact that they want everyone to be Christian. They for the most part don't seem to understand that not everybody is a Christian. I for once would like to have a discussion with them on a subject like this with out having to bring up the bible. They can't seem to figure out that saying God said so in the Bible does not convince me. You don't see other Religions coming here and saying to the Christians it has to be this way because Buda says so. Lord Shiva said it should be this way but they always have to tell you what Christ wants. The same chapter of the Bible that calls a man laying with a man an abomination also says eating shellfish in an abomination but you never see the Christians protesting in front of Red Lobster or partitioning the state house to pass a law banning calm chowder because it offends God. The thing I have found is many Christians have very little knowledge of their own bible they only know what their priest/minister tells them but few read the whole thing for themselves. I just get tired of being told I need to follow Jesus all the time.
Ted Geisel
8:31 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
@ Arthur, I think you misunderstood what I said. Namely the parts about me being embarressed by and for you. Also the part about how I disagree with you on just about every level possible.
Furthermore, Saying that the state shouldn't deal with gay marriage because the economy sucks is ridiculous. Perhaps you shouldn't deal with gay marriage until your life is perfect and you are without sin? Let me know how that works for you.
"I do not submit to the notion that people are "born gay." That argument runs against biology and genetics. If people were born "gay", their parents would have to be gay, but if the parents gave birth to a child, then they were never gay to begin with." If you think this is how genetics works, you are sadly mistaken. You could start with looking at the difference between dominate and recessive genes and then go from there.
"Homosexual conduct hurts a person's body, with higher incidence of disease and death, and these statistics come from countries where homosexuality is openly accepted and accommodated (The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, and so on)" Please cite your sources. I see this tossed around a lot but no concrete numbers to compare. I would suspect that given the increased testing for things like legal prostitution in the Netherlands would also increase disease detection. Wouldn't gay marriage help reduce disease by providing a structure for stable and monogamous relationships???
11:09 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
"I submit that homosexual conduct is a choice, and a bad one.
I do not submit to the notion that people are "born gay." That argument runs against biology and genetics. If people were born "gay", their parents would have to be gay, but if the parents gave birth to a child, then they were never gay to begin with."
Choice or biology isn't exactly clear. One thing is clear though... You have a total lack of understanding of biology AND genetics AND behavior. There are numerous examples of homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal world. The age of the parents can lead to genetic mutations in the children. Further, small deviations in horomone levels in the mother can produce significant effects on the in-utero child. In addition, exposure to abuse and other forms of sexualization at an early age can significantly alter the attitudes and behaviors of an adult. Many things can effect the sexual preferences of an adult. The "natural" order of this generally results in mostly heterosexual behavior. That said, to say conclusively that it is a choice and is against biology is absolutely wrong.
Jack Baillargeron
4:00 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I still can't get my head around why this issue does not move to the proper solution;
Which is "Civil Unions" with the same rights that a Religious Marriage Union conveys when hetro's get a license from the State. It seems simple to me and many of my Gay Friends agree that should have been the way to approach this years ago. They also think that; When the "Gay lesbian Allience" decided instead to make it a religious issue with the Marriage thing, they had to know it would just create division and be exactly what it has become, bigoted arguments on bothsides.
No end in sight for this other than following the Constitution and leaving it up to the States. As for Federal Involvement like DOMA, they should repeal it and stay out of local State tax issues and the Federal IRS should just grant the same deductions a hetro Marriage license gives on taxes when the State is who controls licensing not the Federal Government. also the same penalties involved such as alimony, child support etc.
All of these can be addressed at the State level or through local votes. These are peoples choices in life and the government has no business being involed in personal social issues in my opinion anyway. ;-}
4:12 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with most of what you say, Jack.
All except for leaving it up to the states. Can you imagine what it would have been like for you (I'm assuming your'e heterosexual and have a family) and your wife and kids...if your marriage was legal here in RI, but wasn't in another state you found yourself moving to? What if you got transferred with your job, only to find out suddenly your not legally married? What would that mean for your kids? Because that's essentially what happens now. I have gay friends who have faced this very issue.
I understand that constitutionally there are things that are left to the states - but attitudes towards gay marriage have shifted nationally and it's time for SCOTUS to rule that this discrimination is unconstitutional and take it out of state's hands.
Jack Baillargeron
4:51 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Problem with the SCOTUS is I cannot see them ever ruling definativly on this one way or the other. See confusing on the Healthcare law, gun laws, etc.
This has been around for quite some time now and I do not think I would trust the Federal Government to get it right at all. They would come up with such a convoluted set of rules and regulation, on purpose in order to continue to use this issue as a political football on bothsides to pander for votes due to the divisionism in this Country on this issue that is close to equal on bothsides it appears.
In the end that is why I say leave it to the States. I think States would have a hard time not approving it, when there are so many I think would go the Civil Union route just to end this and get it out of the political stream of politics accross the Country.
I believe most people are fed up with this issue like myself and want government to get on the ball on Jobs and the econmy and leave these social issues for after. I also think if they did that for just one year they could come up with plans to get the US back to a good economy with out wasting time on any issue that is not, imperative to be acted on.
Though I would agree all that if a dream that will probably never come to pass in this day and age. To much intrenchment in the political system in my opinion to accomplish anything for decades now no matter the party in power, local,State and Federal.
Jack Baillargeron
4:56 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Forgot to add that States will not cut their own throat if a business threatens to move. Because lets face it most businesses could careless as long as the worker produces and they make money. As for public jobs especially the ones that get Federal funds or education facilities. If the Federal Government has to honor the States rights on Civil Union, ie the tax equality, all things that get Federal funds would have to honor them as well.
Think about what happened to Universities that tried to ban ROTC or military requiters, they lost their funding and had to go on their own. Well private entity may be able to do that. No State could in this day and age of Government funding to the tune of Billions and billions in my opinion.
Jack Baillargeron
4:57 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Sorry so long but as most know, I have no clue how to be pithy most of the time lol.
Joe Sousa.
4:40 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
As I watch debate in the State House it reminds me that not all Democrats share the same opinion on this issue. Some say Voter Initiative is the answer .Put it too the people . Get it Done ! Vote it up or down and stop neglecting your duty. These issues need to move off the floor and on to the Gov. Or back for study if that's the vote. The budget should be the No1# issue. That way we don't have to vote on it 3am in the morning.
Portsmouth Citizen
4:52 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Mr. Schaper:
In your article you wrote, "Rhode Island leaders should be wedded to divorcing the citizens from the state's outrageous pension obligations instead of stepping to who marries whom."
In short, the argument you appear to be making is that RI should not deal with marriage equality when we have other issues to deal with like pensions, budgets, etc.
That is wrong on many levels. First, the GA can and routinely does work on multiple matters at the same time.
But moreover, marriage is a civil right like the right to political speech, the right to a lawyer in a criminal trial or the right to keep and bear arms. The only kind of person who would argue that civil rights should take a back seat to financial issues are those who have never been deprived by their government of a basic civil right. Put it this way, ask yourself which you would find worse: that the government takes more of your money than you would prefer, or that the government denies you your right to worship God according to your faith.
The fundamental right to marry is more important even than the state budget.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
6:57 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Marriage is not a right, Portsmouth Citizen. Minors cannot marry. Mentally handicapped individuals cannot marry. Marriage is a mature commitment between two people, which involves a fundmental change in status, whether one is religious or secular. Marriage is a union in which two people give up their rights to themselves and become one with another person.
Regarding "rights" enforced in this country, marriage is not mentioned in the United States Constitution. Certainly, Rhode Island, as every state, has the authority to determine the legal bounds of marriage. My argument is that marriage should be a private matter altogether, with nothing from the federal or the state governments speaking on the issue.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
6:57 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"ask yourself which you would find worse: that the government takes more of your money than you would prefer, or that the government denies you your right to worship God according to your faith."
They are both bad, yet this distinction is irrelevant to my argument. I never said that people could not marry, but that it must be a private matter, for heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.
Politics Sheriff of NK
8:58 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Except for the RIGHT to life LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. So I guess it IS a right, huh. Go ahead, you can admit it. Really, you'll be ok.
Naome Lixes
10:37 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Arthur, don't backpedal.
Just pedal back to California.
You're not really welcome, here.
Renee Cwiek
5:49 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
. Marriage is a union in which two people give up their rights to themselves and become one with another person.
Give up their rights? Become one with another person? I've been married for over 20 years. I never agreed to give up any rights nor become one with my husband. We did agree to comprise and treat each other as equals though.
Do you ask your wife to bring you a beer and make you a sandwich?
Portsmouth Citizen
9:42 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Mr. Schaper, you wrote, "Marriage is not a right, Portsmouth Citizen."
Yes, Mr. Schaper, it is. In a line of over a dozen cases dating all the way back to the 1880s, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that marriage is a fundamental civil right.
You are not authorized to say what is or is not a civil right under our constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, does have that power. And, they have held that marriage is a civil right.
The very fact that you would state that marriage is not a civil right, when incontrovertibly it is a civil right, reveals that you are not well enough informed on this issue to warrant further discourse.
10:49 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
"You are not authorized to say what is or is not a civil right under our constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, does have that power. And, they have held that marriage is a civil right."
Well said, Portsmouth Resident.
Mr. Schaper, you are entitled to your own small minded bigoted opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
10:52 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
A "marriage" has two parts. From the civil perspective, it represents a legal, binding contract entered into by two consenting individuals. It is enforced just as all contracts are enforced. From a religious perspective, it is a Sacrament, Rite, Ritual, etc. It is encouraged by most religions for the purpose of establishing a stable household of like-minded individuals who will procreate and raise their children in the same church. One could make the argument that the sole purpose for this encouragement is to increase the ranks of the church followers and, thereby, increase the church's coffers.
10:55 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I meant to also say, the reason a marriage can't be between minors or the (severely) mentally handicapped is because they don't possess the mental or legal ability to enter into a binding contract.
Leave RI
5:14 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Arthur Christopher..
...Of course you are attacking me, because the points which I have made are right on, but you are unable and unwilling to understand or undertake to refute them...
Dear Artie,
I'm sure that you think I've picked on you for being "right" on issues. You're as wrong as it gets for the posting of personal "morality" issues. If you think I've "picked" on you because I'm a far "left" leaner..well let me say it has just made most of us on this Patch laugh at that notion..
Now..get your new Adidas's on because your Hale Bop bus just pulled in.
Naome Lixes
7:17 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Let me get this straight, the OP is a conservative Mormon blogger from Torrance, California looking to spread his brand (for free, natch) far and wide.
How do you get paid for tossing out thought grenades and assessing the carnage?
It's the same tactic that is bringing down local politics - outside money and influence. What makes the Patch great is LOCAL flava...
This amounts to spam.
Joe Sousa.
7:30 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Got to love America. Freedom to express and assemble in peaceful means . Public opinion is better learned when all side are expressed .
Leave RI
8:20 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"Let me get this straight, the OP is a conservative Mormon blogger from Torrance,."
I agree..sorry I did I misspell Mormon way above? PS Ed's it was intentional..I expect a delete is forthcoming..I accept
Joe Sousa..I also agree
Renee Cwiek
6:09 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
You posted that twice. It wasn't funny either time. Just sayin'.
Naome Lixes
12:54 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Dear Arthur,
We have plenty of conservative voices, right here in river city.
Kindly spare us further submissions. There are plenty of outlets for
the Conservative entertainment complex, elsewhere.
8:10 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Joe says "Got to love America. Freedom to express and assemble in peaceful means . Public opinion is better learned when all side are expressed ."
Funny how Joe has no problem with someone on the opposite coast posting on the "local" blog yet in the past complained about me as a Portsmouth resident posting in Tiverton. I guess whether he considers it free expression or not depends on whether he agrees with what the poster is saying.
8:48 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I thought Joe lived in Tiverton? Why is he posting in Newport? ;)
Joe Sousa.
11:13 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
DSilva ,It's the way you whine all the time. Like a squawking hen .
Ted Geisel
8:34 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
bimbels, certain articles appear across all the patches in RI. I'm from the Narragansett one and it shows there. It also shows on Newport, Tiverton and probably more.
Joe Sousa.
11:28 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Our nation stands on the principal that all are created equal. Fair and equal treatment under the law. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jesus would be proud of our love for others. as he said, Do on to others as you wish others to do on to you.
The world will know peace when the power of love out weighs the love of power.
Fred Engels
11:32 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The U.S is progressing. We aren't there yet but we are definitely making forward progress. Immigration reforms, sexual and intimate freedoms, socialized welfare, corporate reforms to punish capitalist agendas and the removal of guns from society are all good starts to an enlightened society. Marriage is a chain that burdens society. As society becomes enlightened, that will become more evident.
The notion of "family" gives an advantage of the rich, for true equality we must transcend these views of family and realize that the family is all of humanity.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!
Forward Progress, fellow progressives!
Leave RI
8:44 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
You've also been reserved a seat on the above mentioned Hale Bop bus.
8:42 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
That's so novel, Scott. Did you come up with that all by yourself? And what does your God have to do with it? My God says he doesn't make mistakes and to love everyone and not judge. Also, s/he doesn't care if gays marry.
Joe Sousa.
9:31 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I heard it phrased God created Adam & Eve,not Adam & Steve . It came out of the mouth of a Catholic Priest. That was my last Mass.
Research into the Human Brain has shown there are differences in part of men and women's brains . Simply put between the black and white exists grey. It's the human factor. Science proving the Church wrong. Knowledge over superstition .
Video: How Does the Brain Work? | Watch NOVA scienceNOW ...
One of many shows on the human brain
Ted Geisel
9:32 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
If anyone is interested it passed in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. 11 for with 2 absentees. It could be voted on by the full house as soon as Thursday.
seed and soil
10:23 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
It always leaves me scratching my head. Why do the self righteous get so active when it comes to these hot button, highly emotional, highly personal, individual rights issues. IMHO, the self proclaimed faithful miss the mark by a long shot. In most world wisdom traditions including all of the Abrahamic traditions ...aka Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the divine source gives man FREE WILL. If G-O-D gives free will than how does government - especially democracy - have the right to take it away in matters of the heart? On the flip side, faith leaders (and the faithful) have every right to interpret sacred scriptures from their traditions to create life guiding doctrine. The government does not have the right to impose state approved doctrine on faith traditions. So what's all the hullabellu????? Can't we all just agree to disagree. Sticking with the old adage, "I don't have to agree with you to like and respect you", seems the logical end point on this one.
Renee Cwiek
4:24 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
We can agree to disagree, but don't bring it into my church. Is that what you're getting at?
Arthur Christopher Schaper
2:34 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sounds good to me, "seed and soil"
Tolerance does not mean acceptance, but it does not mean hatred and fear, either.
Marriage is a private matter, get the government out of it all together. If two men want to walk down the aisle, that is their choice. If two women choose the same, that is their choice, as well. Individuals do not have to like it, nor do they have to be forced to endorse it. Churches do not have to offer ceremonies if they so choose.
The growing concern for some is that people will be forced to accept "gay marriage", and no one should have to accept anything. Tolerance, yes, but not acceptance.
Renee Cwiek
4:12 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Why shouldn't churches have to offer it? Oh...wait...never mind. I know the answer.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
2:51 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Joe Sousa. 7:30 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"Got to love America. Freedom to express and assemble in peaceful means . Public opinion is better learned when all side are expressed."
Thank you, Joe, for your comment.
I wish the Rhode Island General Assembly shared your interest in the clash of different ideas. One-party rule has this nasty tendency of squelching dissent, and breaking checks and balances.
Fred Engels
3:26 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Leave RI said at 8:44 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
You've also been reserved a seat on the above mentioned Hale Bop bus.
You simply have not yet become enlightened enough to understand the totality of our cause. Deep thinking far beyond what are our current experiences are required to envision the utopian end game. I can assure you, that in the end, civilization no longer has a need for the current vision of "family". Even Marx recognized that children were instrumental to the continued "sucess" of the bourgeois by indoctrinating their beliefs and also by passing on private wealth. These factors must be eliminated, if we are to advance to the level of humanity that everyone here has envisioned. Radical changes don't come quickly and the results are, well, radical.
In the end it won't be missed, we will all live with a different understanding of ourselves and our fellow man. If you believe in true equality, then you believe in the liberal cause and you ultimately believe in these ideals, regardles of whether or not you realize it just yet.
Leave RI
4:13 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Fred Engels..sorry about the Hale Bop.. I was apparently mistaken .The bus for the Branch Davidian Compund is waiting for some enlightening and utopian speech..
" Even Marx recognized that children were instrumental to the continued "sucess" of the bourgeois by indoctrinating their beliefs and also by passing on private wealth"
Jack Baillargeron
4:53 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Of topic I know.
Leave RI; You seem to have an infatuation with the Comet "HaleBop" any particular reason or do you just hate "Haley's Comet".
Signed and inquiring mind lol.
Leave RI
6:06 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Jack..right about now any comet will do..it seems Hale Bop attracts certain types though..
Jack Baillargeron
7:10 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Leave RI; Ok was wondering ;-}
To "Hale Bop" you do know there really was no spaceship behind it to pick those numbskulls up right ?
Leave RI
8:08 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
ok stop it! Are you now going to tell me the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny aren't real...c'mon man you're screwing with me..that spaceship picked up all of Arthur's friends wearing new kicks and plastic bags..I read it on the internet..if it's on the internet, it has to be true..
Jack Baillargeron
9:03 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
"Bubble Burst"
Leave RI.
"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."
"You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twillight Zone!"
"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone!"
"You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!"
"You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone."
Jack Baillargeron
9:05 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Oh that is not off topic since it is about as silly as this issue is. Right is Right and wrong is wrong anything else is, well the "Twilight Zone lol.
Ted G
4:50 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
In RI, until we can pull moderates from the Democratic crony machine to join the GOP (which is vastly different from the zealots of the RNC), we'll watch this one-party-state continue to disintegrate. I do not share Mr Schaper's religious views...in my estimation, "Adam and Eve" were two single-celled organisms living in an asteroid containing water that survived a violent collision with Earth billions of years ago. I, therefore, do not lend much credence to the sacrament of marriage--whoever anyone wants to marry out there---go for it, no skin off my nose. Unfortunately social issues like these are what send people into the voting booth here every time to despicably pull the left lever. If I am to take Mr Schaper's blog in the spirit in which it is written, one thing we both agree upon is that a union-dominated legislature with zero checks and balances is destroying us. So I beseech the many libertarians I know are out there to shun the progressive dialogue and focus on fiscal prudence. I hope Gina Raimondo is first to jump ship.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
5:50 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I am glad that one more person shares some values which I share.
Your suggested tactic is right on. Get the "moderate" Dems to switch sides.
You should contact the Republican National Assembly:
(401) 487-2514
And the The RI GOP
(401) 732-8282
Libertarians may be suprised to find that the RI GOP has more in common with limited-government advocates and libertarians than one realizes.
I write these posts as a Conservative who believes that RI and the rest of frustrated New Englanders can teach the GOP and the rest of the country a thing or two about fiscal discipline, and mean it.
Thanks for writing.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
6:15 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
"In RI, until we can pull moderates from the Democratic crony machine to join the GOP (which is vastly different from the zealots of the RNC)"
Social conservatism is not zealotry, if that's what you mean.
Otherwise, your point is well taken. The RNC elites are out of touch with the rest of the GOP across the country. Romney was not my first or my second choice for the GOP Presidential nomination.
I have no problem with easing immigration (along with a diminution of the welfare) state). I support defederalizing drug use, as well (let the states decide whether to prosecute or not).
As I have mentioned in my blog post, defederalizing marriage would be best, the more conservative position.
You can be a Christian and a libertarian, a conservative and a libertarian, or a libertine and a libertarian (just keep it to yourself).
Hope this response clears up any confusion.
Jack Baillargeron
7:14 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Arthur, how about just be independent and the heck with party affiliation. Issues should know no party if they are just and equal for all citizens period.
That is in a nut shell what the Country was founded on in my opinion. Hense the Preamble of All men are created Equal though it did take time get that across even in this Country.
11:58 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Pray tell Arthur, who would you have like to see president? Rick Santorum maybe? Those "GOP Elites"....which ones are they?
Jack Baillargeron
5:18 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Thought about this for a while after my First post on this Subject. I rarely post about Religion as I believe it is an individual choice and not to be forced on anyone, nor non-religious views to be forced on anyone. Has to work both ways or it is just constant childish bickering to me.
What I find strange is why the author would chose a State that is the Most Catholic State in the Country per square mile, most Catholic Churches per Square mile, The only Colony Founded on Religious freedom and tolerance whether religious or not by Roger Williams. The first synagogue Built in the America's in Newport where the British burned every Church down except the Catholic one of Trinity, (which because it has three Crowns above its pulpit, they mistakenly thought it was a Church of England).
With this rich history on tolerance in this State, it seems even weird for the author to preach intolerance of others who have a different belief. Many of the Christian Sects have various differences even with other religions. This makes one wonder just what the heck your definition of tolerance is. Like I said before; to me it is a tax issue concerning a contract. Bringing religion into it just created a scam for politicians to garner votes from one side or the other and in my opinion and Gays fell for that and the other side relished the thought of it because of the mass of Christians who live in the Country. Sad really. Just saying.
Jack Baillargeron
5:27 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I would futher point out, that as the only State with the longest single party rule in the history of the Country (over 78 years and counting). We have a lot more pressing problems I agree on the home front then this Marriage debate, which like the abortion debate constantly stops the real issues that affect the most people from staying on the floor of the General Assembly until fixed.
Like all social debates like those 2 I mention; they need to be worked on in good times in my opinion. They also should be done in the simplest of terms as Government always creates the most convuluted and ambiguous rules in order to return time afte time to amend their stupidy, which is really about job security by keeping issues the are divisive never fully solved, again for votes. It is an old a well worked scam over all history.
Canon Richards
7:23 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
"...in Newport where the British burned every Church down except the Catholic one of Trinity, (which because it has three Crowns above its pulpit, they mistakenly thought it was a Church of England)." Just to set the record straight (no pun intended!), Trinity was never a Roman Catholic Church. It was founded in 1698 as a parish of The Church of England and became an Episcopal Church after the American Revolution. The Episcopal Church continues to be a member of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide family of churches which began with and still includes The Church of England. Also, there are not three crowns above the pulpit. I believe you are referring to the three decorations above the organ. There you will find one crown (symbolizing the English monarch) and two mitres or bishop's hats (one for the Archbishop of Canterbury and one for the Bishop of London, the ecclesial authorities under whom the church operated at its founding). More information can be found online at www.trinitynewport.org
Jack Baillargeron
8:44 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Thanks Cannon after I wrote it I wonder if I got it wrong on the denomination but wasn't sure. Thanks. But I remembered the burning thing when I was a kid in newport. Thanks for the correction ;-}. Has a great history and isn't it also the only one with the staitcase for the priest or something. I forget what that is called. I know it is a special feature no in other churches I think.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
5:52 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
"With this rich history on tolerance in this State, it seems even weird for the author to preach intolerance of others who have a different belief."
I do not preach intolerance, but tolerance. Marriage should be a private matter altogether, I wrote.
Regarding intolerance: don't you think that it's time for an end to RI Dems and their one-party tyranny?
"Government always creates the most convuluted and ambiguous rules in order to return time afte time to amend their stupidy."
My sentiments exactly!
Jack Baillargeron
7:29 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
My point is that you are tending to push the religious view, which is just as intolerant as a non-religious view used by others on this issue. I stand by it is a tax regulation issue period. Once you are declared a legal spouse for tax purposes all others like insurance, estates ect. will have to follow that law, or all spouses would be invalidated. That just isn't going to happen in my opinion.
So forget all this Marriage crappola and do "Civil Unions Licenses" for every one and make regulation for what ever the slippery slope worries are (i.e. Multi spouses, animal/human etc. Sadly you know that will not only end up in court but will be done by some people to scam the system. I am sure even the Supreme Court would rule that reasonable restriction can be applied since it is the States rights.
It is all so foolish and yet simple to me anyway. "Marriage is a word plain and simple.
State changes Name of form to "Civil License" application. Who ever Enjoins these couples must be licenced by the State like they are now to purform these rituals, cerimonies, what ever you want to call them. Where is the harm or the argument against that? Well I can do a "Devils Advocate" very well on almost any issue in my opinion.
I have not been able to think of a single reason to deny this right to 2 humans because they are the same sex. It so reminds me of dare I say "interacial laws in the past.
Jack Baillargeron
7:37 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Oh my way is also "Logical" and to argue it any other way is "illogical" because you are trying to decide another rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness'
No where does the Constitution say except certain orientations, and I read it almost every day along with federalist papers, and notes from the founder and have yet to see anywhere they would even think of stopping this.
My opinion is they would look at it like I am as merely a rule or regulation that is equal to all citizens, if they had the same information that we have now since this type of situation was not around in their time and has evolved over time. But I have faith in their wisdom which was so ahead of its time they would agree with me on this issue, Again in my opinion.
Robert E
7:39 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Arthur what you seem to forget these RI Dems you keep talking about are the duly elected government of Rhode Island put there by the people of Rhode Island not some monarchy that overthrew the government and took power. What we don't need is someone from out of state coming here to enact regime change. Rhode island is democrat because we want it that way. Why don't you try to fix California for a while Rhode Island is just fine.
Jack Baillargeron
8:24 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sorry Robert have to respond to that one lol. We all are not fine with the State being controled by one party for 3/4 of a Century and I disagree this State is far from fine lol.
Continue on lol
12:07 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
LOL I have to say...I lean left on just about every issue but I don't think our state is run just fine. I do agree unemployment an business climate issues need to be addressed like yesterday. While I agree with almost nothing in the GOP platform, I think we can address our problems within the state without a slash and burn mentality.
That said this is a democracy and the people have elected our leaders...Given the fact that I'm a FL native, I'm happy we're in the state we're in as opposed to what's happening down there. ;)
Our government is capable of multitasking, and I'm happy our legislators are finally taking up gay marriage in RI...regardless of the states other problems. it's about time.
12:52 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Arthur writes: "I do not preach intolerance, but tolerance. Marriage should be a private matter altogether, I wrote."
Yes, it SHOULD be a private matter. I couldn't agree with you more. But as the laws are today, with certain rights (having to do with medical care, inheritance, children, taxes, etc etc etc) pertaining strictly to legal spouses, not just in RI but everywhere in the country, that is not the reality. Would you agree with that?
So until that changes gays should have the right to marry. What's likely to change first....the government out of our marriages or equal rights to all who want to marry? Let's be realistic.
Jack Baillargeron
4:17 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Just for kicks & Grins Bimbles.
What is a GOP Platform in this State, I mean a super Majority in the general Assembly to the tune of 80% for over 78 years, tells me there is no GOP platform in this State lol.
I am an independent, (but not like the Chaffee can't say what I really think he is on here lol), Constitutionalist, with conservative and liberal leaning on many issues various issues. I hate the single lever voting and believe people should vote issues as a whole (if you agree with all the issues of a canidate, run for the hills he is lying).
You have to pick the best person who you think will do the most you want. Again if you think the person can do it all, he is lying and will surely scam you. Party poltics is just that, a party for them and you being the waiter serving them when it is suppose to be the other way around ;-}. Don't know if thats a quote from somewhere but I kinda like it lol.
In anycase we definatly agree this issue is foolish and long past being argued over Idealogies. It is just plain and simple about equal laws being applied equaly reguardles of race, creed, or anything else in my opinion. Get it done and out of the political arena where it is just being used as a hammer on bothsides with the common sense people in the middle. Also my opinion ;-}.
2:20 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Jack, I cannot speak to RI GOPs agenda. What I can speak to is the GOPs general platform, which I disagree with vehemently on most social issues, and my experience coming from Florida, where the Tea Party is running the state. And I disagree with where the that state is on the strongest terms. That is what I don't want in RI.
Renee Cwiek
6:09 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
People have a right to marry whomever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. If it takes the RI government to help make that happen, then YAY FOR RHODE ISLAND! I'm proud to live in a state that will make that happen. Until then, if you don't live here, shut up. Worry about what happens in your own state and keep your ignorance there.
Politics Sheriff of NK
11:35 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I tend to agree. No need to persecute some adults who want to associate with others, but not the rest of us. Life Liberty and Happiness...
seed and soil
9:04 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Whomever and whenever....correct. Wherever, not so much. As mentioned in my post above, faith leaders and the faithful have the right to interpret the sacred scriptures of their particular tradition setting doctrine based on their individual interpretations. This is their right. What this debate comes down to, is folks agreeing to tolerate/accept the rights of one another. One side must tolerate/accept the right of same sex couples to marry, while same sex couples must tolerate/accept the right of faith communities to not perform same sex marriage ceremonies within the walls of their churches. Not so sure what's so hard about that for everyone to grasp. I guess paradigm shifts take time!
Renee Cwiek
9:11 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Yes....I always forget that the church has the right to push their ignorance onto people and say nononono....you can't do that here. You'll go to hell. Sorry, not buying it.
Good Christian people my ass.
11:00 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Garbage legislation. Making a mockery of marriage.
Joe Sousa.
7:33 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
From what I'm seeing the GOP RI small as they are seems to embrace this legislation . It's certain Democrats who oppose it.
Maria Cabral
8:20 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
My name is Arthur Christopher Schaper. I am a life-long resident of the South Bay which is somewhere in California. I currently live in Torrance. I am a writer and my work has appeared locally here in Ca. as well as nationally, including the Daily Breeze, the Los Angeles Jewish Observer, and "even" papers in (exotic, alien locations such as) NJ and Mass.
While sniffing around for something to amuse myself with, I noticed that there is a some kind of vote concerning "gay marriage" in the state of RI. Maybe I'd better Google "Rhode Island" and see what I find.
(Wow! I had no idea that Rhode Island wasn't an island! And it says here in Wikipedia that it's actually a state! It also says that RI is the "state with the highest unemployment, the worst business climate, and the most pressing pension obligations in the country.")
Hmmm, this could be fun.
I think what I'll do is write a "column." I'll start by insulting RI'ers and their governor and I'll rub their noses in their current plight. Just to make things interesting, I'll festoon my prose with all sorts of stink bombs like "government overreach", "nanny-state intervention", and "managing-and-controlling progressives".
Ok, finished.
Now, like a kid with a magnifying glass and a tray full of ants on a sunny day, I can sit and watch as the RI'ers hop, jump, and devour each other in response to my words.
After I get bored, I'll just go back in the house and maybe my mom will make me some cocoa.
Renee Cwiek
8:28 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
This is the best thing I've read in a very long time! Awesome!!!!!
9:55 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Wondering - What did the recently passed "civil union" legislation omit that necessitated that a gay marriage bill be introduced? Didn't it acknowledge and provide all rights afforded heterosexual couples?
Jack Baillargeron
11:48 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Sadly Lu, In an effort keep this issue tying up politics for ever as a vote getter it did not do much of anything. There lays the problem when Government gets involved trying to define it as a total social issue rather then just keep it simple tax beneifit issue. In my opinion.
Beginning in 2002, Rhode Island allowed for unregistered domestic partnerships that provided a small number of legal benefits to same-sex couples. For example, the surviving spouse of such a partnership, if a police officer, fire fighter, or correctional officer, could receive a death benefit. Domestic partners could adjust their state taxes to reflect the costs of health insurance premiums.[1] Domestic partners could control the funeral arrangements of a deceased partner.[2] This status became inactive with the state's adoption of civil unions.
It is still so convoluted I cannot believe cooler heads do not prevail and just end it with changing the License name to "civil Union" as I said above. I suspect that billions of dollars in this Country has been wasted on this in Court and legslative time rather than use common sense and reconize the society has evolved on this issue which has been ruled time and again by the courts as Constitutional.
We can argue forever on the moral issue, but the majority of every poll studied says it is a tax issue to them and the government has no right to determine a moral issue.
Jack Baillargeron
11:56 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Get this thing off the Political football field. It is an issue politician love to keep the people occupied well they steal out childrens money. As I said before we use to have bans on different races marry into the 20th century. I see this no different as that was a moral choice for most people in its day.
There are morals involved in many things, but to me this is not one of them in my opinion. We allow people to make animals like a cat, dog, hampster etc. Heirs to estates but not this? I could probable equate this to anything as being wrong I believe. Doing it piece meal like RI tried to do was a big mistake that RI always makes. I have never seen a State more likely then not to make ambiguous or unenforceable legslation.
Least thats how I see it ;-}.
Job Seeker
10:48 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
The homosexual agenda has as its primary aim to "trump" the rights of all other groups, especially those of people of faith. The saddest part of the story is that it is working
Robert E
12:14 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Trumping your right to what? To discriminate. Same sex marrage affects no ones rights except the same sec couples nowhare has the gays asked the people of faith to perform anything against their faith thay only ask people of faith to leave them alone. The law allowing same sex marrage will have no affect on the Christian faith. Don't worry no one of the same sex as you will come and force you to marry them. Remember what any of us do is between us and God, not between us and those who think they speak for God from their small minds. How about let's wait and let God decide who gets in and who doesn't. How about we give him a little credit and believe he is compassionate and does not make such decisions based on the prejudices of man.
Jack Baillargeron
12:46 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Never quite figured out what it Trumps or how it affects or changes the life of the opposition? Could you be more detailed Job Seeker? It is hard to see your point if you cannot be more precise on what it Trums and how. Just saying
2:16 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Exactly, Robert E. Job Seeker has a sad that his right to discrimination - that one that was so championed by our forefathers btw (not) is being taken from him.
Don't fret though, Job Seeker. You still have the right to be a bigot and have the right to judge others and the right to wish your religion forced on people who have different beliefs that you do. The gays won't ever take that away from you.
Jack Baillargeron
2:59 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Bimbles; I agree some what. However I really I am not a party guy or belong to any political organization, I do belong to the NRA, however I do not agree with them all the time either. I tend to abhor parties as I think that group mentality of individual thought is a recipe for disaster, proven by the politics on this on both sides of actually any issue you can think of aside from starting wars in the when they seem to come to gether amost unanimous until the reality hits them anyway. The the blame game by both sides.
I was being sarcastic of the platform in RI. Even if there is one I doubt we ever see it debated in the general assembly lol.
To the Florida, Havn't been there in a while so I can't say if your correct or not. I tend to not care what happens in States I do not live in unless something they do ends up affecting me in my State. Which is usually CA that is the cause of that most times, so I abhor CA also lol.
There are many issues I disagree with in the platforms of both parties and yes most of them are either fiscal or social. Social more than fiscal however. When Government gets involved in Social issues you know 2 things, Taxpayers are going up and someone is getting the short end of the stick or shoved you know where, both parties are just as guilty on that one. lol.
7:34 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Why is someone from California blogging on the Bristol Warren Patch?
Why does Patch allow that? Is he paying to blog out of area like this???
BTW the only reason this vote (it just passed the House) never came up was because Paiva - Weed would not allow it to be voted on in the Senate. She agreed to allow a floor vote this year so there it is. The House knew it wouldn't get to a Senate vote so Fox didn't bring it to a vote knowing it was dead in past years.
She (P-W) won't allow a vote on e-verify either. The State is held hostage by her whims.
Jack Baillargeron
8:46 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Think your right on weed there downtown she is a piece of work that one. Legend in her own mind and such. ;-}
Jack Baillargeron
8:48 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
I also tend to wonder how many know that since civil unions were made legal there have only been 68 of them in the last 16 years.
Kind puts it in perspective of how foolish and the time wasted on this in my opinion.
Jack Baillargeron
12:54 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
You're welcome LU, just all seems so foolish to me. That Wiki, thing shows exactly what I said previously of the politicians running a foorbal game on it with "we the people".
Jack Baillargeron
1:06 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
On another note I agree with "Downtown" above that Piava/Weed will make sure this contimues on the football field, she is after all one the worst things to be elected in the Eastbay bar none in my opinion.
Fred Engels
11:50 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Leave RI, Marx argues that the monogamous bourgeois nuclear family developed to help solve the problem of the inheritance of private property. The men needed to know who their children were in order to pass on their property to their heirs. The family was therefore thought to be by Marxists as designed to control women and protect property. The Bourgeois nuclear family emerged with capitalism. It is patriarchal as designed to guarantee and encourage male power through the inheritance of property. It therefore serves the interests of capitalism.
Capitalism must fail, and the traditional sense of family will ultimately fail with it. Every intellectual liberal philosopher realizes all of this. Please don't fool yourself simply because your feeble mind is unable to comprehend progress.
read this essay, it summarizes the socialist view of family in simple terms that are easy to understand, even for simpletons. - http://www.studymode.com/essays/Asses-The-Marxist-View-That-The-850461.html
Naome Lixes
6:42 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
I thought marriage was established to provide an opportunity for nooky without
putting on cruel shoes to go out for dinner and a movie, first. My bad.
It's important to note that in matriarchal societies, where the women may freely choose their partners, they prefer the company of other women.
For progeny, 80% of the women pursue 20% of the men.
Traditional Western marriage gives average men a chance.
(Some get more than one, but that's expensive.)
Jack Baillargeron
1:01 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Leave RI; Well I guess I own you an apology, When someone is trying to convert you to a Karl Marx and not a Groucho Marx you are right that the, Hale Bop bus is indeed available. lol
Tiverton Dad
9:35 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Patch Editors, I thought the "Local Voices" column was for people who were actually local, and not for voices 3,000 miles away and completely out of touch with RI culture and politics. I'm not disputing the blogger's right to state his opinion, but this is the wrong place for it. Perhaps Patch should have a column for national voices.
Maria Cabral
10:26 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Tiv Dad:
I think your suggestion for a "National Voices" classification for bloggers is brilliant and I hope the Patch Powers-That-Be are paying attention.
It is my observation that the author of this blog is a professional pot-stirrer. Take a look at this link:
It clearly shows that the author traipses around the country and touches down where he smells an opportunity to ruffle some local feathers on some hot topic or other:
Wrentham, Mass. => Proposed tax increases
Hudson, WI => Collective Bargaining Rights
Florrisant, MO => "The Rape of our Fiscal Future" (i.e., Sen. Todd Akin's state, get it? "Rape"? Nudge, nudge.)
West Des Moines, IA => Democrats vote against the "Cliff Deal".
And on and on.
From my observation, it's pretty hard to slip one past Naome Lixes and I think s/he was onto something when s/he questioned how this guy makes money by flitting about here and there and pushing people's hot buttons. I.e., who pays his salary and what is their objective?
It seems that certain parties seeking a national pulpit have discovered that 1) Local Patches are sometimes starved for content, 2) this starvation can be exploited on the cheap, and 3) worse, these parties can present themselves to Patch readers as "Local Voices".
The "National Voices" classification would take care of this nicely. We would all very soon learn to disregard them for the noise they are.
Jack Baillargeron
10:58 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Have to disagree with those that are lambasting the guy or the Patch for Out of State Bloggers. Freedom of Speech knows no State lines. Many People can be former residents with relatives still here so they do stay up on local issues. Many people may be thinking of moving here,(though I dont know why lol).
The Patch is in 25 States nationwide and and part of an International Conglomate. Would you deny your brother or sister oro mother or any relative who moved away the right to blog here? You cannot be selective of the opinions someone blogs about from where ever they are from as this negates the rights and whole point of the patch.
Not all the patch is about local voices it is about timely issues for local voices to discuss. What would be next, no posting is it is not the town or city you live in? See where this is going. Live and let live, it should not matter where the blogger comes from, it should matter that you get your point out on whether you disagree with their view, no different than any other blog. Just saying
Tiverton Dad
12:17 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Jack, if you read my comment again, I am not lambasting anyone and he has every right to have and post an opinion. I just think it's disingenuous and misleading for Patch to call him a local voice. I couldn't care less if someone from out of state posts an opinion; however, when I read a column called local voices, I expect it to be just that.
Jack Baillargeron
1:30 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
TIV; Didn't say you were lambasting. some are some are not. I said Those that are. Just for clarity ;-}
"Have to disagree with those that are lambasting the guy or the Patch for Out of State Bloggers"
Olga Enger
11:02 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Tiverton Dad, the blogger addresses a local issue and local government, gay marriage in Rhode Island.
Ted Geisel
11:26 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
But he isn't a "local voice". He's a national voice talking about a local issue. There is nothing wrong with someone outside of RI expressing their opinion but when the patch puts a banner saying "local voice" directly above this persons picture and name, it is misleading at best.
Tiverton Dad
12:19 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Agreed. Someone local truly has a stake in what the RIGA decides on this issue. The motives of someone from California are far less clear. Readers should not be mislead to faulty assumptions.
Just Another Taxpayer
2:02 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
This author should not be considered a local voice. I agree with Ted and Tiverton Dad's comments regarding the inappropriateness of this person be labeled a "local voice".
Arthur Christopher Schaper
2:37 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Olga Enger
11:02 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
"Tiverton Dad, the blogger addresses a local issue and local government, gay marriage in Rhode Island."
Thank you, Olga!
I appreciate the generosity of your editorial staff for allowing me to comment.
I am convinced that the only reason some people are complaining is that they do not agree with me, but they are unable or unwilling to articulate a different position.
I am saddened that some posts resorted to empty attacks or name-calling, but such is the price for making a worthy point.
Thanks again!
Maria Cabral
10:07 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
So, you've read some posts by Patch readers and you're "convinced" that people are complaining *only* because they don't agree with you? Is that right? What specific evidence did you see that "convinced" you?
Do you think it could also be possible that people are objecting to the way you've presented your ideas because you've shown almost no knowledge of RI, its citizens, and its government? I can only speak for myself, but I'll hazard a guess that a big question on people's minds is this: Have you ever even been to RI? If so, which towns did you visit? Which was your favorite and why?
If you haven't been to RI, does it mean anything to you that I have lived and worked in CA, but that I wouldn't dare write a blog in the Santa Monica Patch criticizing CA's fiscal policy and its governor? Does it make an impression that I wouldn't do this because I don't want people to think I was poking my nose where it didn't belong on subjects I don't know enough about? Or that I wouldn't do it because, as a non-resident, I'm not qualified to ask people to listen to my opinions concerning the intricacies of their state's legislative process? Or, because I realize that I shouldn't be wasting people's time with poorly conceived analogies concerning institutions and leaders which might be important to them?
And did you really just refer to our governor as "Linc"?
Wow, it looks like I just tried to articulate a position. Are you following along, Golden State boy?
Maria Cabral
10:09 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Arthur Christopher Schaper said:
-- I am saddened that some posts resorted to empty attacks or name-calling,
-- but such is the price for making a worthy point.
As an "attack", I thought my parody of the thought process(es) that go into the creation of one of your blogs turned out pretty well. A few other readers -- on both sides of the issue I might add -- seemed to think so too. In fact, I would consider my first post on this topic to have been a robust, meaty, firm, round, and fully-packed attack, i.e., anything but "empty." Still, I'll admit I'm biased. Will you stand and admit a similar weakness, brother?
Concerning name-calling, I thought I hadn't done it, but I checked and indeed I called you a "professional pot stirrer". Even though I provided evidence as to why I think this is true, I probably should have said that you are *behaving* like a professional pot stirrer, which would have focused on the actual problem, instead of making me vulnerable to your comments. I'll try to do better next time.
Other than that, I think the fun is done. It's colder than a bucket of penguin poop here in Rhode Island, so we'll all understand if you need to trot on back into your sunny little house in sunny little Torrance any ol' time.
I think your cocoa is ready.
Jack Baillargeron
11:11 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
On to the problem with some suggestions. If you forbid people from out of State you will never know if they are starting a platform that will affect your State or you personally.
Politicians from other States (local, State or Federal ones) can come up with idea's that spread like wild fire across the Country. I want to know these things that are out there, shouldn't you?
It also works vice versa of a good idea that you would like to see in your local or State area may come from people out of State that you would not have heard of, except for reading it on the patch, since local media cannot and will not cover every State on everything.
Could go on forever with the good or the bad that comes from such things, but we can not ban the (Lydon LaRouch) guys that protest every election in front or the Bristol post office any more than we can ban Westboro church members. I for one want to know where they are from and what their plans are in order to counter that I disagree or agree with. For your consideration people ;-}
Banning something just because you disagree with it is wrong. Silencing free Speech is from anyone is (You Finish the sentence) ;-}
Jack Baillargeron
11:14 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Finnally the bottom line is, no-one is forcing you to read or respond to this individual, it is very simple do not click on the blog, National companies advertise here also, would you deny them that right because they have no store in this are but have one within a 1/2 hour drive. We are a small state you know lol.
Maria Cabral
11:32 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
-- Banning something just because you disagree with it is wrong. Silencing free
-- Speech is from anyone is (You Finish the sentence)
Finishing the sentence:
Silencing free speech is from anyone is *wrong*.
See? We agree.
Adding a few sentences:
Labeling a "National Voice" as a "Local Voice" is *misleading* and *unfair to the reader*.
Providing the proper context concerning a voice's origin is *considerate* and *fair to the reader*.
Believing that the origin of a "voice" does not matter is *naive* and *indicative of someone incapable of making critical decisions*.
Do we still agree?
Jack Baillargeron
12:00 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
That would still be up to the voice not the patch, far as I know they do edit the blog they merely inspect it before posting it. In any case I still do not see the problem with this guy posting where ever, when ever and what ever. Look at local Newpapers, they have editorials from time to time from out of State as well as letters to the editor. No differnce I see.
The choice to respond or debate the individual is your own. To want it silenced because you think it is divisive coming from a non-resident is a little bit prejudice in my opinion. I still would rather hear from all points of view to know what is out there then not. ;-}
My finish on the sentence is; When we dent the rights of any citizen we are all diminished as a society.
Jack Baillargeron
12:06 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
I also do not see where it is unfair, he is hardly a national voice as I never heard of him before this. Have you. Now you know he is out there granted but I doubt he is followed Nationally. Tom Brokaw would be a national voice because, well he is on national TV.
It would also look like a discrimatory practice by the Patch and a nighmare to police who can post where keeping track of millions of users. Probaly bankrupt it and then no more patch.
This guy is a tad pole in a very large pond lol.
Jack Baillargeron
12:08 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Heres another take on it. You vacation in a small town out of State and then post a blog to the local patch of that town on whether you had a good time or a bad time. Does that make you a national voice?
Jack Baillargeron
12:12 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Another one lol.
This guy decided to blog on a national issue that is also a local issue, does not make him national, the issue is as he is not a national spokesman for his cause, merely giving his opinion.
I commented on the Kestone pipeline in many States because it affects everyone in the nation of whether it gets built. This issue would make all of New England on the same page with this issue that. It also is part of the large scheme of things as this issue is spreading State by State across the Country, some for it some against.
Jack Baillargeron
12:18 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Or Marie you could just click on the bloggers name and read thier profile and if you do not like where they are from don't reply. ;-}
11:41 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Just an FYI... HaleBopp won't be back for 2500 years. It was the Heaven's Gate group that committed suicide thinking it was going to take them away. Halley's Comet will return in 2060. This year we have comets Panstarrs and ISON coming. Could be a sign... LOL.
Jack Baillargeron
11:54 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Body preservation can be done for that Sam, we can wait to send those who need sending, just leave a not in their freeze chamber. lol.
Jack Baillargeron
12:15 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Ahhhhh Maybe we got the wrong name of the Comet that the Spaceship is behind hmmmmm.
Tiverton Dad
12:23 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Jack, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. At least I hope it's intentional.
Jack Baillargeron
12:30 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Nah Kinda logical, hardy dimwitted though, which I fail to why you call me that either.
Sorry if it does not make sense to you, but for most I know your arguement is much ado about nothing when the answer is not post to on a blog from a person you consider infringing on your local area. Kinda simple to me anyway ;-}.
Jack Baillargeron
12:40 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Oh sorry besides Logical, also sarcastic for the most part. ;-}.
Think you are wrong on the patch, since it is a kind of local issue and your argument is that this guy should say he is national or the patch should, I still fail to see what it matter as far as the issue it self goes.
It is like saying a gun rights advocate or a anti-gun advocate from another state can not put their 2 cents in on a State that is considering banning weapons or de-regulating weapons. Would you not like to hear all voices no matter where they are from.? I suspect you would.
What one State does can and does make other States look at it inorder to see if they to could use the language in a law passed by another State. The Immigration Law in Arizona ended up producing many laws in other States that passed Constitutional Muster because if was easy to refine those laws after seeing the rulings on the Arizona law and making adjustments.
I could give examples all day long. Though I would then be lambasted as usual as an old foggy and such who spends to much time on line lol.
Tiverton Dad
12:40 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
C'mon Jack, I never said that. I don't have any problem if the author publishes the exact same blog, word for word, on this or any other Patch. I was suggesting that PATCH not mislead readers into thinking he is a "local voice" with local concerns. I suggested "National voices" which you decided to overly parse and dissect. Fine, you don't like my suggestion. How about "Non-local Voices"? At least that would be accurate.
Jack Baillargeron
12:58 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Think I will stick with the old "Tip O'neil" Quote about political issue that are National.
"All politics are Local", because lets face it the guy was right.
Jack Baillargeron
12:59 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
TIV; Think we beat this dead hourse enough yet lol.
Jack Baillargeron
1:01 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Hmmm; A requirement by the Patch that you begin tyour blog with Non-Local Voice if you are from another Stae. Ok I guess that one would work. See when you disect something and acually debate all the senario's you come up with a simple solution that the Patch can do by just putting that in its TOS. LOL Good job TIV.
Jack Baillargeron
1:03 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
See it only took a day to get the solution. Wish politician could do that ;-}
Jack Baillargeron
12:47 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Have to agree I did dissect it lol.
I also suspect all this will be deleted as off topic lol.
I further suspect the patch will never make a section for national voices on a system that is based on local vioces no matter what local it is from, since the 25 or 28 States the patch is in are all connected for anyone to post on them.
Opps still dissecting, my bad lol.
On another note, just curious as to why this appears to be bothering you so much ;-}.
Jack Baillargeron
12:52 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Also my examples prove the nighmare of the patch were they to start a national voice as how do you determine that with my examples of tourist wanting to write a blog on the patch about thier visit to a State they do not live in whether just a Store in RI, or a weekend visit to Newport or somewhere.
My point is that you cannot. It creates micro editing and determination that would overload the editors, those making the patch more confusing then you think this is. Itteresting how it can be an actual very in depth debate on such a petty issue, remind me of poltics in Congress and the State house on the Tanning bed law debate I watched lol.
Dale Clark
4:26 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
It seems like this state is hell bend on letting the religiist groups control the direction of our cities and state?What ever happened to the seperation between church and state?If the churches are hell bent on flexing there might on the will of the people they to should be taxed as any other group,lobbyist,business and the like.
Jack Baillargeron
12:25 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
lol. Maria you made my Night I had not heard that one before "bucket of penguin poop ". Much better than the the witch one lol. I can use that one in front of children lol. Cracking me up.
Does make me wonder who the person is and whaqt they get paid at the South Pole for doing poop patrol though lol.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
2:18 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Thank you, once again, RI Patch editors.
Thanks again, Jack Baillargeron.
Naome Lixes
7:24 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
I understand Glenn Beck is forming a modern day incarnation of Galt's gulch.
Perhaps you would find receptive audience for what amounts to nostalgia, there.
If there's one thing America does not need, it's another conservative blogger.
Arthur Christopher Schaper
4:05 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
If there's one thing that America needs, it'sa greater diversity of opinion, plus a reality check.
I have provided both.
Just Another Taxpayer
6:17 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Too bad you suffer from a lack of humility.
Dan Johnson
1:45 pm on Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Harming others by refusing to treat them as you would yourself under the law, goes far beyond a simple difference of opinion. American does not need more prejudice and discrimination.
The irrational prejudice you promote causes needless suffering and death around the world.
Dan Johnson
12:17 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Treating gay couples equally under the law does not redefine marriage. None of the laws that determine "what" marriage is are changed. Only the "who" is expanded.
No church can be required to perform any rite they choose not to. Some churches still refuse to marry inter-racial and inter-faith couples. That is their legal right.
Some churches already perform same sex ceremonies. Laws that deny equality, deny those churches the right to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. Recognizing legal equality does not require any church to recognize it, but denial of legal equality restricts religious freedom.
Marriage provides over 1,138 federal legal rights and protections in addition to the state laws. Gay people want those rights and protections for the same wide variety of reasons straight people demand them for themselves. Marriage has a stabilizing effect on relationships among the many other benefits it provides.
But we are talking about the legal civil right of marriage, not the religious sanctification of those marriages. Churches are free to choose the rites they perform and for whom. While some religious congregations recognize marriage equality and perform same sex weddings for their members, they are not required to do so. Marriage can be performed by a judge, county clerk, or Elvis impersonator in Vegas.
Recognizing legal equality does not require any church to recognize it, but denial of legal equality restricts religious freedom.
russell archambault
7:04 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Dan Johnson
8:08 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first gay couple married in Ca, were together 55 years. There are many other stories of same sex couples who have spent a lifetime together. Yet the 48 hour marriage of Brittany Spears, the 8 marriages of Larry King, the 3 of Newt Gingrich, etc, aren't used to justify denying anyone the right to try and try again. Surely equal protection of the law requires gay people have the same right to try to find happiness.
For those marriages that do fail, at least there is some protection equally, under the law.
russell archambault
9:24 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
yes I agree equal protection under the law., and big law bills. Everyone should get sucked in the law system.