Alex Blaze

Rhode Island Compromise on Marriage Looks Familiar

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 10, 2011 7:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Quote of the Day
Tags: karen macbeth, LGBT, marriage, New Jersey, rhode island

"There seems to be an issue with a word and I want to make sure there is equality. If we're hung up on a word, let's use a different word."

--Rhode Island Rep. Karen MacBeth, a conservative Democrat, on the push for same-sex marriage in that state


Recent Entries Filed under Quote of the Day:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


The word is equality. Separate but equal is not equal.

If we have to come up with a different term just so the Fundies can get it straight in their heads what is religion and what is public policy, I'm all for it. In some states, I will surely be pushing up daisies before they pass marriage equality.

Rep. McBeth, thanks for this Valentine, a breath of fresh air and common sense.

And I insist that my viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's.

my equally valid opinion is...

something that wont happen.
it seems to be if they want to not use the word marriage. fine. dont use it.
for anyone.
completely separate the notion of marriage from church and state. make domestic partnership the legal term for the civil part specifically spelled out in practical terms,for everyone and marriage the religious term, interpretable however depending on the belief system.

of course that wont happen, because this isnt really about a word.

if it was civil unions would be defined, protected, and respected the same as marriages

I am ALL for making up a different word.

If they want to make civil unions that contain the exact same benefits and serves as marriage aside from the word, by all means.

Just make sure - ABSOLUTELY SURE - that said system can exist for both gay and straight couples.

I refuse to accept "This for gays, this for straights". Instead, create "This for gay couples and straight couples (civil unions) and this for straight couples (marriage)".

They want to protect marriage? Let's see them protect it after another system exists that is truly established equality.

David McCain | February 11, 2011 5:08 PM

Why surrender the word "marriage" to homophobic fundamentalists? Why should mainline churches, including some Episcopal, United Church of Christ, and Unitarian congregations who want to bestow marriage on their members have to avoid that word? Sorry, but the fundamentalists don't get to establish the rules for everybody else.

I don't know how I missed this before it went into the archives. I sat in the judiciary committee hearing on marriage equality at the R I statehouse on Wednesday. Yes, this does sound very familiar. It is analogous to what is at stake for people with transsexual histories - sex designation as opposed to "gender recognition" and notions that separate classes will ever be equal in light of the law of unintended consequences. Language matters. (cf the seemingly pointless battles of terminology among people with transsexual histories and those who will accept being thrown into a transclass). No, I wouldn't settle for second class the same way I won't settle for third sex.