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), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], 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).

123 Comments

  1. Will Fisher
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    What notaries public have been targeted for their faith? Can you give an example?

  2. Zack
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    It's a broken record. "It won't effect you, it won't hurt you"...until you disagree with it.

  3. Richard
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Oh Brian, hide behind children, hide behind religious liberty. The first is reprehensible, the second is inflammatory and non-existent. Why is it so difficult to admit you simply hate gay people? That you use children to cover your true motive is the crime that will bury you in the end.

  4. Richard
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Brian, state after state, legislature after legislature, country after country is sending you a message. You can't win when you demonize a segment of the population. You can't win when you attempt to demonize the millions of gay parents who have rescued children from abusive homes and horribly dysfunctional straight parents. You can't win when most recognize that the love between two gay people is stronger than the hate you hold for them.

  5. Rob
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Brian, so many sour grapes in this press release you could make whine from it.

  6. Jeanette Exner
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Imagine how many conservative Christians would go absolutely ballistic if a Lesbian notary public decided to stop issuing marriage licenses to Straight couples, saying it conflicted with HER religious beliefs.

    But of course that would never happen, because Gay people support marriage equality for Gay AND Straight couples.

  7. Richard
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Brian, I listened to the testimonies of the senators in RI. Did you? That these very thoughtful members would weigh with severity their consciences, their sense of justice and the visits they had with gay couples should be a lesson to you. Have you done your due diligence? Have you come to acknowledge the value that gay couples can give to adopted children? Are you so blind with hate you can't see light?

  8. Rob
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Brian, you always threaten rearguard action after losing. For every politician NOM threatens, we will elect five more who are committed to equality. After all it was Tim Gill and the gays who pit Rick Santorum out of power for good.

  9. Chris
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    At least you have Columbia.

  10. Jeanette Exner
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    NOM ... nom nom nom ...

  11. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    I do worry a bit about all these manufactured children with no clue about their linage, marrying each other and creating gay mutants. But there I going again, thinking about consequences, when everyone else is just concerned about their own ♪ f e e l i n g s ♪

  12. John N.
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    The worst part of all of this is that once again the people had no say as the people were not allowed to vote on this issue. Is there a way to get this on the ballot or are the people of RI scrwed the same way CT and MA are when the people were not allowed to vote.

  13. Jeanette Exner
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    DEAR JOHN N.:

    It's called a representative democracy. If you don't like the way your representative votes, vote for his opponent in the next election. But I'm sure the vast majority of Rhode Islanders think there's bigger fish to fry than whether law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples are allowed to marry. Don't YOU?

  14. John K.
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    The people elected every person who voted on this issue, John N. They had a say. You are just not in the majority. Get over it.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, John.

    Or have you already forgotten your own words?

  16. Ash
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    @John N.

    "Is there a way to get this on the ballot or are the people of RI scrwed the same way CT and MA are when the people were not allowed to vote."

    SSMers generally target states where the people aren't able to overturn the decisions of their legislatures via referendum. Odd strategy for those who are supposedly "winning the argument."

    Even for Washington and Maryland, two states where voters upheld ssm via referendum, the first goal was to impose ssm on those states via court decisions. But SSMers lost both cases.

    In any case, I'm glad that Brian is looking to hold Republicans who vote to redefine marriage accountable.

  17. Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    10 states now and going strong! Proud to be legally married in my great state of Maine! Sleep well everyone!

  18. Randy E King
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    Marriage corruption supporters typically target States where they can game the system. Their tyranny will be undone; and the system will be made stronger for it.

  19. Ash
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    @Richard,

    "That these very thoughtful members would weigh with severity their consciences, their sense of justice and the visits they had with gay couples should be a lesson to you. Have you done your due diligence?"

    What does visiting gay couples have to do with the public purposes of marriage? Anyone can visit polygamists, relatives raising children, etc., and still conclude that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    (41) States says your (10) State strategy fails the test of time.

  21. Randy E King
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Puerto Rico makes it (41)

  22. Shawn
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    so now there are 51 states? interesting....

  23. Shawn
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Randy is more obsessed with gay sex than I am, and I am gay!

  24. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    ♪ nothing more than . . . f e e l i n g s ♪

  25. Fitz
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    The constant barage of ss 'm" advocates at this site who wine and moan and offer snide comments or abtuse jeers does not help their case.

    When the Irish finally took the mayorship of Boston the promtley built a "warming house" for the poor of Boston (Irish mostly) - on top of a hill adjacent the most promenant wealthy area of Boston.

    It had no real purpose except to thumb their nose at the old guard and declare victory over the establishment..

    This is all redefinition of "marriage" means to these people...a way to spoil it for everyone...

    The posts on this site by ss "m" advocates reveals this.

  26. Rob
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, explain just how what I do magically "spoils it for everybody? Or does it just spoil your sense of cultural and religious superiority? Buddy, you need some self esteem.

  27. OldKingBlog
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    Seth, your life, your orgasms, and you and your partners and your call for "everyone to sleep well" are less than insignificant. Pissant scum!

  28. OldKingBlog
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    And that goes double for you, Jeanette. Move on to Moveon.

  29. Chairm
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Rob, explain your justification for the SSM impostion. Focus on the reasons that you think the 'gay relationship' merits special status on par with marital status.

    No, the supremacy of gay identity politics is not a good reason nor is justification for the SSM imposition -- not even by your own stated standards.

    So, explain.

  30. Randy E King
    Posted April 24, 2013 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    Shawn,

    Obsessed...me...?

    You hide behind bastardized words just so you can live with yourself and the choices you made; choices you refuse to take responsibility for, and you call me obsessed...?

  31. Bobby
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    Randy - "The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority." I could not have said it better myself , mate. All the reason why DOMA will be found to be unconstitutional.

  32. Posted April 25, 2013 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    Richard said: You can't win when you attempt to demonize the millions of gay parents who have rescued children from abusive homes and horribly dysfunctional straight parents.

    LOL and in what planet does Richard live in where there are no horribly dysfunctional homosexual and bisexual parents?

    Frank Lombard, for example, "rescued" two African-American toddlers and adopted them with his "husband" so that he could rape them every night.

    The only reason he got caught is because he went and bragged about he was doing on the Internet, trying to further pimp them out to other homosexual monsters.

    You see, homosexual activists, instead of spending energy in publicizing these horrible deeds, come here to the NOM blog to attack decent people like Brian. And they keep silent about every case of homosexual abuse there is in the world, empowering all homosexual abusers the best way they can.

    It's thanks to people who normalize homosexuality that Lombard was able to adopt and abuse children. Along with all other dysfunctional homosexual and bisexual parents.

    But then again, what does Richard care about how many homosexuals abuse children?

  33. David Broadus
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    It is beyond laughable that NOM feels that the right to refuse to stamp a piece of paper or sell a flower is much more important than the right of a loving couple to get married and build a life together. Come on, now. Enough is enough.

  34. Frank
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 2:53 am | Permalink

    @Alessandra:

    Thanks for another example of the old "selective generalization" fallacy. Been around for decades. Goes like this:

    Straight person does something seriously messed up = "That person sure is messed up."

    Gay person does something seriously messed up = "Gays sure are messed up."

    Put a sock in it, please. That "logic" was BS decades ago, and it's BS now.

  35. Posted April 25, 2013 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    Kudos to Rhode Island for moving into the 21st century and making it legal for loving and committed couples to marry in their state. Congratulations Everyone!

  36. Rob
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Chaim -- gays are not claiming they want to define and oppress heterosexuals. They are demanding nothing less than equality. Why is equality such a difficult concept to grasp for you? It is obvious you consider gay love or committment somehow inferior to straights, but thank God the Catholic church has no say whatsoever in the matter. Feel free to practice your cult as you wish, just don't pish it on us.

  37. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Ron,

    They are demanding words be redefined so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravit.

    Equality happens to be one of those words.

  38. Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Frank said @Alessandra:
    .................................
    Fixed it for you, Frank:

    Thanks for another example of the old "selective generalization" fallacy. Been around for decades. Goes like this:

    Straight person does something seriously messed up -like beating up a person with a homosexual problem - see Mathew Shepard

    Hysterical media reaction, dozens of movies and television programs produced on how HORRIBLE conservatives are for being all anti-gay bull1es, b1gots, and Naz1s - university students all mobilize to cry together about the victimization of the p0or gay

    Gay person does something seriously messed up = like repeatedly sexually torturing his defenseless adopted toddlers

    Complete silence from the media and people like Frank above. There is no media coverage, no movie or television program, no outrage, no clamoring for the change of laws to protect children from abuse by h0mosexual m0nsters. No gay is deemed to be even bad, much less a pedophile m0nster. University students go and have a beer and continue to turn their backs to all children abuse by LGBT individuals.

    "Put a sock in it, please. "

    Take your sock and put it in your homosexuality agenda.

  39. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Sodomy is still sin.
    Sodomy is still perversion.
    Homosexuality is still immoral.
    Homosexuality is still an aberrant lifestyle choice.

  40. SC Guy
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Well, it was sad what happened in Rhode Island but it isn't surprising considering its liberal, Democratic tilt. We must keep up the fight and do our utmost to limit the spread of SSM. Hopefully, we'll have a better result in Delaware, Illinois and Minnesota.

  41. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    So called SSM is but a grotesque caricature of authentic marriage; which is all it will ever be.

  42. Fitz
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Rob (writes)

    "Fitz, explain just how what I do magically "spoils it for everybody? Or does it just spoil your sense of cultural and religious superiority? Buddy, you need some self esteem."

    "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

  43. Frank
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    @Alessandra:

    Thanks for proving my point.

  44. CRSmith
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    I pray everyday that the Supreme Court will decide to strike all of these gay marriage laws. It is high time that DECENT people get to have a voice for a change.

  45. Frank
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Oh, come on Brian; chin up (both of them). Rhode Island is just one tiny little state. It can't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

    Your focus today should be on Colombia. Let's see one of those blog entries whose title starts with "VICTORY!" I haven't seen one of those for a while.

  46. Frank
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    @Alessandra:

    Let me fix my own last entry:

    Thanks for not addressing my point, which is SOP for your side of the "discussion."

    I am complete on this topic and won't be returning to this page, so you may have the last word (once again, not addressing my point, no doubt), should you wish it, although I think you'd be better off putting a sock in it as I originally suggested. Buh-bye... ;-)

  47. Andrew
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Anything I could write here would be inadequate, so I'll merely let Dr King summarize: "The Arc of the Moral Universe Is Long, but It Bends Toward Justice."

    Thank you, Rhode Island, for doing your part to bend in the direction of justice, equality, and freedom. Thank you.

  48. zack
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew

    Dont insult Dr King. The man would not be on board with this.

  49. David Broadus
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Brian, are you really sure about this plan to let the people of Rhode Island know who voted for and against gay marriage? A survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research in 2010 showed that 63% of Rhode Island Catholics supported same-sex marriage, provided provisions for their church (not "individuals and small businesses")were in place (which they are).
    Public Policy Polling reported in January 2013 that 57% of Rhode Island voters supported legalization with 36% opposed.
    Brown University stated in February 2013 that its polls showed 60.4% of Rhode Islanders supported gay marriage with 26.1% against.
    It looks like all of these people would be on the side of those who voted for the measure, no?

  50. David Broadus
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    It's quite clear that the Rhode Island legislature did exactly what the people wanted it to do, so what is the problem? (Please don't respond by saying "all those polls are lies". Brown University is hardly in the habit of "making stuff up" to appease the gay lobby.)

  51. Andrew
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    @zack, Dr King was on the side of justice. Nuff said.

  52. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Dr. King noted in his letters from the Birmingham Jail that "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

    The law of God views SSM to be an abomination.

  53. Will Fisher
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Randy, I suggest you read the Bible a little more closely (hint: context matters).
    Zack, Coretta Scott King said otherwise.

  54. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    @Will,

    Are you saying that Dr. Martin Luther Kimg did not mean to say what he said based on what two people who are not Dr. Martin Luther King are reported to have said...?

  55. Zack
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew

    King supported EQUAL justice, not social justice. There is a difference.

    @Will
    "Zack, Coretta Scott King said otherwise."

    And I'm suppose to take her word for it? A devout Baptist Minister who used his religious beliefs as a platform to uniting people of color and casting down the shackles of racism would have supported something that was incompatible with his religious beliefs? Surely you jest.

  56. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Now let us see what God said in Leviticus 20:13:

    "If a man also lie with mankind, as he leith with a woman, both of them committed an abomination..."

  57. Ken
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Randy: Later, God said in Ezekiel 16 that because Jerusalem had sinned worse than Sodom, He will restore the fortunes of Sodom.

  58. Son of Adam
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    "Kudos to Rhode Island for moving into the 21st century..."

    It doesn't matter what century this is. Biology works the same today as it always had for 100s of millions of years and always will for 100s of millions of years.

  59. Posted April 25, 2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    "Kudos to Rhode Island for moving into the 21st century..."

    The century where every dysfunctional individual on the planet claimed to be normal.

    It's like 1984 and Animal Farm combined.

  60. Will Fisher
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    Randy, what's the rest of that verse? I'm unfamiliar with the Bible.

    Randy and Zack, King had a far more nuanced understanding of Scripture, especially the OT. He was not a fundamentalist (in fact, lots of Christians are NOT fundamentalists). I recommend historian Taylor Branch's "Parting the Waters", "Pillar of Fire", and "At Canaan's Edge".

  61. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    @Will,

    The old "who are you going to believe; me. or your own damn lying eye's?" routine does not go over as well here as you seem to believe it does.

    You really should save your blatant lies and falsehoods for an audience that buys into your bastardized words and history revisionism defense of your depravity.

  62. Will Fisher
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Randy, answer my question, what does the rest of that verse say?
    You think Taylor Branch is a revisionist? How so? In any case, name an historian who writes about Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement who you find credible, please.

  63. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Will, quit changing the subject!

  64. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Will, Are you trying to say that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King did not believe what he wrote?

  65. Will Fisher
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    Not at all, Randy. What I'm saying is that you don't understand what King meant. You're taking something he wrote about social justice and trying to fit it into your narrow view of human sexuality. According to his late widow, he would have supported gay rights. If he shares your view of gay people, he sure would not have had Bayard Rustin as a confidant.

  66. Will Fisher
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Randy, my ideas of King come from reading Taylor Branch's trilogy. If he's not a credible source, please point to an historian whom you find credible and ill read.

  67. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Will,

    Simply pick up a copy of "Letters from the Birmingham Jail" and read the words of the man himself; as opposed to some stooge looking to make a name for himself off of someone who did..

  68. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    King was only 39 when he was stolen from us. The letters where written when he was 34. MLK did not evolve into someone else in those five short years.

  69. Fitz
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    Letters from a Birghmingham Jail is as Christian a Christian document as they come.. "An Immoral law is no law at all" quoting Aristitotle, Thomas Aquinas, & Augustaine and refrencing St.Anslem.

    He's right of course about the "arc of justice" its simply longer than Randy realizes.

    Theirs no plausable way to make the Rev. Martin Luther King into a gay "marriage" supporter.

  70. OldKingBlog
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    Alessandra, I'm honored you are among us. Honored. You settled Frank's hash but good.

    As for Andrew, let me translate his leftspeak sentence, "Thank you, Rhode Island, for doing your part to bend in the direction of justice, equality, and freedom. Thank you." for the benefit of us:

    Folks, what Andrew really means is "Thank you, Rhode Island, for doing your part to bend in the direction of permissivism and age-old dream of the libertine, a world without any restrictions on sexual behavior. Thank you."

  71. OldKingBlog
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    As for David Broadwhatver, the poll numbers you quote are false, period. Move on to Moveon

  72. Chairm
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    Rob said:

    "Why is equality such a difficult concept to grasp for you?"

    The concept of equality: we are forbidden to treat people differently -- arbitrarily; we are forbidden to treat people the same -- arbitrarily. You have read that from me before in comments here. If you understand it, please accurately restate what I have said but in your own words.

    Rob also said: "It is obvious you consider gay love or committment somehow inferior to straights".

    That does not accurately represent what I have said. Knowing this, please try again. Thanks.

  73. Zack
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 1:28 am | Permalink

    @Will

    "Zack, King had a far more nuanced understanding of Scripture, especially the OT"

    I say again; King would not have abandoned his religious beliefs for feelings. He would have understood the absurdity of equating sex with race and have chastised the black community for allowing the Democrats for getting away with such a disservice.

    Try again.

  74. Zack
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    @Will

    "According to his late widow, he would have supported gay rights. If he shares your view of gay people, he sure would not have had Bayard Rustin as a confidant."

    1) His widow is not the authority of what he would have believed.

    2) Having a "view of gay people" does not determine if one would work with them or have them as a confidant. You share some very strong insecurities if you think one's bed-life is reason enough why people wouldn't get along with an individual.

  75. Will Fisher
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    Randy, I'm quite familiar with Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The immoral law he talking about was segregation. Are you equating SSM with segregation? He said an immoral law should be nonviolently resisted. If you see this law as immoral how do you plan on resisting it, Randy?
    BTW, What does the rest of that Bible verse say? Why the suspense?
    Zack, Coretta know the man a lot better than you.

  76. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Will,

    The good Reverands focus was on universal truths. Truth is obviously foreign to you.

  77. Will Fisher
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Clue me in, Randy.

  78. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    Reverand Dr. Martin Luther King knew all to well he needed to focus on that which united us in the family of man if he were to realize justice in race relations.

    Marriage corruption supporters are completely dependent upon the devoid and conquer techique all tyrants gravitate to when natural law stands between them and the satisfying of their wants.

  79. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Correction: divide and conquer...

  80. Richard
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Will Fisher, I looked up Leviticus 20:13 and now understand why Randy refuses to reply to your request. ...the two shall be put to death and the blood will be on their heads. No wonder he wouldn't reveal such tyrannical and terrorizing Biblical "truths". Now, the question is: do Randy and others believe this or is this just one part of the Bible we should all ignore?

  81. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    It says they are "worthy of death; their blood gultineds is upon them."

    Which means they are responsible for the choice they made. It continues to explain that even though you are capable of repenting you will not because of how low you had to allow yourself to slip into depravity.

  82. Will Fisher
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Randy, why did King also oppose the Vietnam War (i commend to you his sermon from Riverside Church in NYC on 4/4/67) and support organized labor (on 4/4/68, he was in Memphis to support striking sanitation workers)? How is SSM incompatible with King's vision of a 'family of man'?
    Richard, I know what that verse says. I just Randy to be honest and own it. Do you favor criminalizing same sex relations, Randy? Capital punishment for gays?

  83. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Becomes changing the meaning of marriage is not a universal truth; it is completely dependent upon blatant lies and falsehoods.

  84. Posted April 26, 2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    OldKingBlog: Alessandra, I'm honored you are among us. Honored.

    Thank you, that's very kind.

    You know one good thing, the more that people with a homosexuality agenda are shoving their agenda down everyone's throats, the more social conservatives everywhere are increasingly rebutting their harmful arguments with more breadth and depth. That's nice to see. As are your comments, and Randy's, and other socons' on here.

  85. Andrew
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I should have mentioned in my previous comment: particular thanks to the RI Senate GOP for their unanimous support for marriage equality. As in NY, their courage is fully appreciated, and should be a model of bipartisanship for other states to follow.

  86. zack
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    @Will

    As do his niece Alveda and youngest daughter Bernice. Both have stated that MLK would not be on board with redefining Marraige. A devout Bible believing Baptist would not recind his religious beliefs. This is reflectant in the black community who more or less have been huge followers of Reverend King.

    You insult the legacy of a man who fought against the oppression of the DNC who perverted the Bible to feel good about themselves. Reverend King would not be on board with this secularist movement.

  87. Will Fisher
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Have you met Alveda? Bernice was 5, when he died. No thanks, I'll trust his wife to have a better idea of where he might have stood on a current issue. As for how a devout minister can support legalizing SSM, there are plenty you could ask (Otis Moss III comes immediately to mind). And if I have insulted the legacy of King, so has the NAACP.

  88. Posted April 26, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Why can Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow speak for him now? If he was still alive, he would correct her when incorrect.

    What kind of silly argument is that? Virtual transfer of prestige? Republicans are the most illegally discriminated voters in the nation. Martin Luther King Jr. would side with them. His widow has no automatic credibility. Even Bush's wife agreed with SSm in one interview, but it didn't mean Bush himself agreed with SSm, and many examples could be given.

    SSmers don't use logic. They use vague implications. Let's tell everyone what they are really like. As we told the hippies: marriage is not just about love and commitment. That's friendship, not marriage.

  89. Will Fisher
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    She died in 2006. Her statement on SSM is from 2004, before a lot of pols 'evolved'.
    Republicans are the most illegally discriminated in the nation? Do tell, please.

  90. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    @Will,

    Continue to cherish and love a lie if you dare. As for me ; I choose to believe the words of the man himself.

    But, then again, I always did care more for fact than fiction.

  91. Will Fisher
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Then where did King condemn SSM? Or homosexuality, in general? Quote away, Randy.

  92. Richard
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Randy, talk about bastardizing words. Your response #81 is as slippery and evasive as it gets. Leviticus 20:13 says, ...the two shall be put to death and their blood will be on their heads. Should we believe what the Bible says or not? What do you believe Randy?

  93. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Will,

    The good Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King dedicated his life in service of the laws of God and nature. The laws of God and nature condemn same-gender sexual activity.

    "By their fruits you shall know them."

  94. Richard
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    And while I'm at it. How about it Alessandra, OKB, Little Man, Barb, Ash, zack et al..the two shall be put to death and their blood will be on their heads...perhaps it's time to put your cards on the table. This should be interesting.

  95. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Are you trying to say that it does matter what the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King believed because he was a Christian and the Christian faith is unconstitutional because it stands in opposition to your demands for special consideration?

  96. Richard
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    Randy, post # 81 is your post which offers your explanation for Leviticus 20:13. MLK is not part of this.

  97. Will Fisher
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Randy, here's the disconnect: you need to show that King's interpretation of the Bible was as literal and fundamentalist as yours.

  98. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

    The above words are that of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King; not mine.

    Nuff said!

  99. Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    Will, wills that Biblical interpretation be exactly the .same. Dumb move

  100. Will Fisher
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 5:33 am | Permalink

    Little Man and Randy, King was not a Fundamentalist. Apparently, you two are. Prove that what King meant as the law of God and the moral law are a literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:13, et al. King has a long paper trail of speeches and sermons. If you're right than surely he uttered some condemnation of homosexuality. Quote away.

  101. 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!

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

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

  103. 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.

  104. 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.

  105. 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."

  106. 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...

  107. 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.

  108. 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!

  109. 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.

  110. 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.

  111. 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

  112. 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.

  113. 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?

  114. 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.

  115. 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

  116. 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.

  117. 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.

  118. 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?

  119. 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.

  120. 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).

  121. 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.

  122. 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?

  123. 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.