Marriages Begin in MN and RI

Same sex couples are now able to marry in Minnesota and Rhode Island.  Congratulations, everyone!

From the Star Tribune:

The streets outside Minneapolis City Hall were filled with newly-wedded gay and lesbian couples reveling in their new marital status Thursday morning while inside dozens more waited their turn in lines that lasted until dawn. 

Down the street at the Hotel Minneapolis, Cathy ten Broeke and Margaret Miles, the first couple legally wed in Minnesota, partied into the night, wearing the same slinky dresses they wore 12 years earlier at their commitment ceremony. This time, ten Broeke said with some satisfaction, was different because this “was the state of Minnesota committing to us and our family.” 

Mayor R.T. Rybak worked through the night and early morning hours, officiating the weddings of 42 gay and lesbian couples on the marble steps of the City Hall Rotunda where, at the bottom, the massive Father of Waters statue was surrounded by folding chairs, wedding guests and dozens of clicking cameras.

And from the Providence Journal: 

From Newport to Pawtucket, Rhode Islanders Thursday visited city halls at the first moments on the first day that marriage licenses are available for gay couples.

In Newport, Federico Santi and John Gacher came in promptly at 8 a.m. to the City Clerk's office to get their marriage license.

They had waited 41 years for this and within a few minutes the documents were signed and the couple were married. They were the first same-sex couple to marry in Newport under a new state law.

Congratulations, everyone!

Bishop calls for Catholics to shun same sex weddings

In Rhode Island, which is now the 10th state to approve marriage equality, the Roman Catholic Bishop calls for his flock to shun gay couples.

At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful. And because “same-sex marriages” are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.

It's not the first time that the hierarchy has called on people to shun their gay loved ones.  There are numerous examples from Minnesota during their amendment battle last fall.  And of course, punishments against those who would dare support gay couples, like denying Confirmation or Communion. It smells of desperation, given that the Roman Catholic laity are strong supporters of equality. 

From Andrew Sullivan :

All they have is calling our orientation “intrinsically disordered” and our families “clearly contrary to God’s plan” in a way they would never use with respect to, say, civilly divorced Catholics or those using contraception.... Take the right to a stable home away, and you do not bring health, happiness and peace. You bring sickness, depression and pain. And the reason some in the hierarchy still do not see this is because they cannot yet see gay people as human beings, with dignity. And that is what is “intrinsically disordered” from a Christian point of view.

Marriage in Rhode Island?

It passed the RI Senate, now back to a reconciliation in the House and then on to Gov. Lincoln Chafee's desk, probably next week.

Meanwhile, things are rolling in DE too.

And then there were 10....

Progress in Illinois and Rhode Island

After the election, where the pro-equality side won not 1 but all 4 battles, we thought there would be some momentum.  But who thought it would be this fast?  It feels like a log jam is breaking up.

In Illinois, there may be a vote as soon as today by the legislature about marriage equality, which is endorsed not only by the "usual suspects", but by the chair of the Illinois GOP and President Barack Obama.

A profile of a lesbian couple and their family explains why it matters.

And in Rhode Island, there may be a vote by the end of the month.

More on both states at Salon.

Happy New year, indeed!

Whose religious freedom? News from Rhode Island

Despite a pro-equality governor, Rhode Island's legislature decided that marriage is not in the cards this year so they put forward a civil unions bill. Gay groups are calling for it to be vetoed. Why would they cut off their nose to spite their face, you ask? Aren't civil unions better than nothing?

Not necessarily. The Rhode Island bill comes with extreme "religious freedom" protections that go beyond constitutional guarantees. Basically, they legitimize civil discrimination outside of religious acts. Here's what the bill says:

15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. – (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required:

(1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or

(2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or

(3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal.

The PRop8TrialTracker comments

Perhaps some legislators looked at the careful negotiation and insertion of religious exemption language in New York State and demanded the same deal. The difference is that pastors deciding who to marry, and synagogues deciding whether to rent out their reception hall for a wedding, is not the same as this.

I’ll give you an example: if I were back home in suburban Buffalo and my partner had a medical emergency and I had to get him to a hospital, Kenmore Mercy hospital would be the closest ... If he were treated at Kenmore Mercy, then despite all my civil union paperwork, despite my partner’s wishes for me to make important medical decisions on his behalf, or be at the doctors’ side to tell them important information like what he’s allergic to or that he only has one functional kidney, they can treat me as a complete stranger and it’s legal.....

Let’s say I didn’t want to go to a Catholic hospital because of those very concerns. Then the next closest hospital would either be Millard Fillmore-Gates Circle or Millard Fillmore Suburban, both ... twice the distance. That’s the difference between life and death. And this bill’s language could mean that.

ThinkProgress says the same thing:

Were this bill passed in its current form, religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, and businesses could completely ignore any civil union and deny couples the rights those unions are meant to accord. The way this reads, a nurse at a Catholic hospital (as an “individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations”) could deny same-sex partners the right to see their ill loved ones.

Rather than protecting religious organizations’ religious beliefs, this language is unabashedly concerned with ensuring that religious organizations and individuals can continue to discriminate against same-sex communities without repercussions.

I wonder, would the Catholic hospital refuse to recognize as married a couple where the two spouses had been married previously and divorced? Somehow, I'm going to bet not. So why are they given the rights to do that here?