NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Decries Passage of Same-Sex 'Marriage' By Rhode Island Senate

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 24, 2013

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


National Organization for Marriage

"The Senate has abandoned society's most important institution and put their constituents on a collision course with the law." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Providence, RI — The National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island today decried passage of same-sex 'marriage' in the state Senate and pledged to make sure that voters know how all state Senators voted on redefining the institution of marriage. The RI Senate passed SB 38 [Sub A] by a vote of 26-12.

"The Senate has abandoned society's most important institution and put their constituents on a collision course with the law," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Lawmakers have allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking they have protected people of faith when in fact they have put those who believe in true marriage in the crosshairs of the law and gay 'marriage' activists. It won't be long before the repercussions begin to be felt."

SB 38 does not create a new category of marriage for same-sex couples. Rather, it completely redefines marriage for all people in Rhode Island. While it purports to include so-called religious liberty protections for churches and certain religious groups, it contains no protections for other faith-based organizations and no protections for small businesses and individuals who are frequently targeted for legal punishment over their refusal to countenance genderless marriage.

"Citizens in other states that have redefined marriage have heard the same shallow promises from elected officials that nobody will be negatively impacted by redefining our most important social institution," said Scott Spear, an Advisory Board Member for NOM Rhode Island. "It won't be long before gay 'marriage' activists start pressing hard their new found rights on the faithful in Rhode Island. In Vermont, Christian innkeepers were sued. It was Christian florists in Washington state. Elsewhere photographers, bakers, event venue operators, notary publics, justices of the peace and town clerks have all been targeted for punishment if they do not agree to go along with gay 'marriage' in violation of their deeply-held beliefs."

Brown said that the biggest losers in the redefinition of marriage will be children.

"For the first time, the state of Rhode Island is saying to its children they do not deserve both a mother and a father, and are backing a law that is designed to intentionally deprive some kids of either a mom or a dad," Brown said. "It's bad enough when families break down through divorce or death, but it's unconscionable when a state encourages this through policies that deprive children of the love of both a mother and a father. This is a very sad day for Rhode Island."

NOM pledged to educate Rhode Islanders on the votes of their Senators and Representatives and to hold them accountable for redefining marriage. "This isn't the end of the debate. We intend to make sure that every Rhode Islander knows how their policymakers voted on this critical issue. We will hold the politicians accountable for their votes. Republicans, especially, will have to answer for abandoning marriage — a core position of the GOP platform — and many may face Republican challengers, as they should."

The legislation now goes back to the House, which previously passed it. Governor Chafee had pledged to sign the bill into law when it reaches his desk.

###

To schedule an interview with Scott Spear, Advisory Board member of NOM Rhode Island or Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

23 Comments

  1. Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    What an amazing Spring Day it is out there! My husband and I are off to help some friends clean out a house....you see, it's not all about sex with the gays...we do lots of other things too!

    Enjoy!

  2. Son of Adam
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Unless you are a woman, he is NOT your husband.

  3. Will Fisher
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Maine law says otherwise, SoA. Maybe Federal law will soon. What you want to call Mr. Thayer's marriage matters not.

  4. Son of Adam
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    The law can call a dog a cat as well. But it will still be a dog. It will still be exactly the way God made it, no matter how bloated the government gets or how biased the media becomes.

  5. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    @Will,

    King was murdered ten years before the Queers started self identifying as "Gay" and "Homosexual."

  6. Will Fisher
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Randy, but the principles he laid out of social justice, fairness, and dignity apply to other issues as well. usatoday30.usatoday.com/.../2004-03-24...

  7. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    King's principles of social justice are laid out by the Bible he claimed as his guide; a Bible that identifies sexual depravity as an abomination.

    The Bible dictates that the socially just thing to do with those who embrace sexual depravity is to ostracized them.

  8. Robert
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    "The Bible dictates that the socially just thing to do with those who embrace sexual depravity is to ostracized them."

    But only if they're gay. If they engage in forbidden pre-marital sex, or adultery, they are free to live with equal dignity as non-sinners! I love the hypocrisy!

  9. Will Fisher
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Randy, you're as obtuse as you are cowardly and mean-spirited. King NOT a fundamentalist!

    POMONA, N.J. (AP) — The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
    Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.

    "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

    Last month, President Bush said he backed an amendment that would ban same-sex unions, calling marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization."

    On Monday, more than two dozen black pastors rallied against gay marriage at a church in Atlanta, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement. They signed a declaration outlining their beliefs that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman.

    "To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."

    King, the widow of the slain civil rights leader, made her comments Tuesday during a speech at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Robert,

    The Bible does not differentiate from the types of sexual depravity; hypocrisy is a sin.

    Those that partake in other types of depravity are severely punished in court; and are not banning together to demand that their depravity be deemed moral by act of corrupt representatives - be they elected or appointed.

    Sexual promiscuity is grounds for denial of adoption rights; you demand your particular brand of sexual depravity be afforded preferential treatment based solely on how much money you have and how many store bought elected representatives you have in your back pocket.

  11. Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, Your opinion as to the status of my marriage is wrong. I have a state sanctioned marriage license to prove it

  12. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Will,

    The late Reverend Dr.Martin Luther King's late widow was not the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. Other relatives who personally knew the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King have stated that there is no equating the sexual depravity you pimp with race.

    Race cannot be denied; sexual depravity can.

  13. Robert
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Randy, what is this whole "sexual depravity" thing you're pushing? What are you talking about?

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    Maine's law has changed but God's laws of nature have not. Not one iota. And they are constant and eternal, unlike man's law which will never endure when it is at odds with the laws instituted by God Himself.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    Robert,

    Do you even own a dictionary; did you know you could access dictionaries online...?

    Depravity: a corrupt act or practice

    Corrupt: to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; to degrade with unsound principles or moral values; to alter from the original or correct form or version.

    Your proclivity is the very definition of a depravity.

    Proclivity: an inclination or predisposition toward something

  16. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    SoA, you're still free to live by your interpretation of God's laws.
    Randy, I'll take the late Coretta's opinion over Alveda's (and yours) any day.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    They are not an interpretation, they ARE god's laws. And they will always prevail over man's laws in the long run.

  18. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    SoA, religious fundamentalism will never prevail over the laws of free people. May I suggest you move to Iran or Somalia?

  19. Son of Adam
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    This is not about religious fundamentalism. This is about natural biological laws that man cannot alter or repeal. You do not have to be religious to grasp that.

  20. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    SoA, what you claim are objective laws of nature are in fact your own (or your denomination's) subjective interpretation of the natural world (and Holy Scripture, for that matter).

  21. Randy E King
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    "religious fundamentalism will never prevail over the laws of free people"

    @Will,

    "Freedom is not a gift bestowed unto us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." Ben Franklin

    I bow to no man. Freedom comes from God and therefore is subject to Gods law and Gods law alone.

    It disgusts me to no end that you miscreants are demanding the right to use your God given gift of freedom to deny everyone else access to the source of our freedom.

    It is like laying claim to the water but being offended by the waters source; pure stupidity.

  22. Chairm
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 5:12 am | Permalink

    The homosexual stuff is extrinsic to marriage. But the SSM campaign wants to make it central to their rhetoric and argument in favor of the SSM imposition.

    So, can the SSMers here explain their moralism in favor of same-sex sexual behavior? Or is their moralism actually irrelevant to their demand for revision of marriage law?

  23. Chairm
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 5:12 am | Permalink

    We already know that there is no proposal to make gay identity mandatory nor to make same-sex sexual behavior mandatory nor to make same-sex sexual attraction mandatory for those who'd SSM. There is no sexual basis for eligiblity to SSM anyplace where it has been imposed in law -- under whatever moniker (civil union, domestic partnership, SSM).

    So the homosexual emphasis is clearly a misdirection.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.