Donald Carcieri, the Rhode Island governor, lives in a state where Catholicism reigns supreme and offers up a religious excuse to oppose gay marriage. Which Carcieri does. But then he traveled north to Massachusetts, where the gays actually can get married, so he could deliver a speech to the Massachusetts Family Institute and battle against the homos’ agenda.
It’s no big surprise: Everyone knew Carcieri was headed to the event. And it makes sense, given the Carcieri Family’s allegiance to hate groups including the National Organization for Marriage; Donald and wife Sue joined the Rhode Island chapter of NOM to push its anti-equality campaign in his state.
But let’s remember: Carcieri calls himself a “traditionalist” who is not anti-gay; he just wants voters to decide on marriage. Oh, and he’s only interested in what’s best for families! He told the MFA audience: “It is a not civil right. I get aggravated when it is portrayed that way. Marriage is a license by the state. It is about a state’s responsibility, which is the reason why states don’t allow a lot of types of marriages. … It’s abundantly clear to me that we have a tremendous problem. [Families are] the single most important public policy issue today and yet it is not talked about. We are failing our children.”
Cam
So he’s religeous and a traditionalist. fine, then Should I see him push to ban textile industries in Rhode Island that sell clothing of mixed fiber? Oh wait, thats right he only uses the parts of the Bible that support his own bigotry I forgot.
TimNCGuy
if he says marriage is a state licensing issue, then what does his religion have to do with anything? Why is he offering up any religious excuses for state licenses?
Robert, NYC
I wonder what he thinks of widows or widowers, single parent families raising children? What next, force them to marry to protect the family and marriage? What about the straight couples who choose not to breed, ban them too? What about the right wing republican married adulterers, Ensign, Sanford, Gingrich, the late Henry Hyde, among others? I suppose gays are to blame for underming their marriages. Hmmmmm, back in 1894, the mormom cult was banned from practicing polygamy, something the right wingers now use to barr us from marrying because they think it will usher in all kinds of behavior including incest and bestiality. Now, they have to ask themselves, who caused the mormons to practice polygamy? Gays? Marriage equality wasn’t even a blip on the radar.
To digress, when politicians state that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage…..how come states issue marriage licenses, isn’t that direct involvement and why does the federal government provide more than one thousands benefits and privileges only available to straight married couples? Isn’t that involvement in marriage? I think it is.
Lance Rockland
Queer Action of RI are going to meet with clown in early November.
Maybe they can talk some sense into him.
Lance Rockland
Woops. I mean, they are going to meet with THIS clown.
ricky
QUEERTY, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN PEOPLES MOUTHS ASSHOLES!
allen
If marriage is not a right, then why are prisoners granted access to this institution? If Carcieri was denied access to marriage, I think he would have a different perspective about it being a right or not.
Robert, NYC
Allen, marriage is not a right but a privilege and benefit provided by the state in the form of a license. Its not addressed in the constitution however. If it were, then it would be deemed a right. Marriage is a contract that requires a license and only the states can issue such licenses which proves my point in an earlier post, that government does get involved with marriage.
If I had it in my power, I’d get government out of the business of marriage altogether and into the hands of the legal profession to draw up marriage contracts entered into and consented to by two individuals of either orientation and signed before witnesses to declare the contract as a legal marriage which would then be filed with the state for ratification. I don’t see the need for licenses anyway. An actual civil wedding ceremony would be be symbolic for those who want them, ditto for the religious inclined.
Don
The Governor won’t be in office much longer and he really doesn’t represent the diversity of opinions in Rhode Island. Remember, the capital city has had an openly gay mayor for a while and the state has a large number of gay residents who are pretty vocal about their views (and the city has a pretty hot nightlife, if that means anything).
RI is catholic, but it’s got a blend of progressive and traditional christians much like Massachusetts. Gay rights is a continuous battle in the state, but the debate is openly discussed which is good.
Fitz
I think he does represent a lot of RI– it’s a very cath-o-lick ground-fill. I mean “state”.
Disgusted American
interesting how these assholes NEVER think about LGBT citizens as Tax Payers or Parents!
Robert, NYC
Disgusted American….exactly. They NEVER have! Another thing, its ok for us to die in their dirty “straight created” wars, spill our blood for the country and for them but ok to kick us out when they find out we’re gay. Its beyond a fucking national disgrace, its an “obamination” and a human rights violation in my view.
Donnie
So marriage is not a civil right, so it follows that a state can deny interracial marriages ??? … I DON”T THINK SO .. Loving vs Virginia settled that one, Don.
Religious grounds or family policy issue is just a smokescreen for Mr. and Mrs. Carcieri’s bigotry .. Shame on them and the hypocritical Catholic church who look the other way on their pedophile priests.
M. Bergeron
Robert, NYC please see Loving v. Virginia Marriage is a fundamental human right which goes to the very heart of what we mean by liberty, and liberty is protected by the constitution.
Also, your repub slip is showing, no one running for preznit except little Denny Kucinich supported marriage equality, not McCain, not Mittens, not Hillary, not Obama. So quit it with the obamanation crap, will you?
Robert, NYC
M. Bergeron, I’m NO republican and NO democrat, a progressive independent in fact, so stop making assumptions about people you don’t even know. The bottom line is, Obama is NOT supportive of same-sex marriage, a complete turnaround from his view in 1996. Another thing, your beloved Obama stated that “government should not be involved in marriage”. Well, that’s a bit rich coming from a supposed scholar of the constitution. The goverment IS involved in marriage when states issue marriage licenses and providing state benefits in addition to the federal benefits provided by the government that can only be conferred once a couple is married, even though marriage is not mentioned in the constitution as a right but the argument for marriage, including same-sex marriage can be inferred by the 14th amendment.