Ass Hat of The Week: The Powers That Be in Rhode Island
I’ve re-written the Ass Hat Friday post three times. Scrapped it and started again. Delete. Delete. Delete.
No idea what the issue is but I wasn’t ‘feeling it’ when it came to my Ass Hat of the Week selection. So, I stopped. Took a nap. Watched the kids run in the sprinkler. Ate twenty pretzels and drank a bottle of water. Still nothing. Cooked dinner. Listened to talk radio. Scooped the litter pan. Nothing.
Could it be that there wasn’t anyone deserving of an award this week? Not likely. It’s just me. The 85 degree weather and lack of sleep this week sucked the creative life out of me. Then I heard a bit of commentary on a local radio show about Rhode Island and their efforts to not legalize gay marriage. Should this little state should be worrying about such trivial things at a time when the unemployment rate is at eleven percent?
Let me just say this (and more): How screwed up is this state where prostitution is legal yet two people of the same sex who love each other can’t get married? That’s right. In Little Rhody, prostitution has been legal for the past 26 years as long as you do tricks behind closed doors. Fortunately, a bill has passed the House to make it illegal, but it’s not a done deal yet. So, for now, you can’t get married if you are gay and you can’t have sex on the sidewalk but you can pay for it inside a ‘spa’. Makes a load of sense.
A lot of valuable time is being sucked up (and I’m positive there’s money that gets sucked up right along with that) trying to prevent gay marriage in Rhode Island. I understand that it is considered ‘wrong’ in the eyes of many religious organizations. The way I see it, to each his/her own.
Marriage is a union between two people. The dictionary typically defines it as the ‘legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife‘ but this has evolved. Modern day dictionaries have loosened up a bit and added ‘…and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other‘.
Hey, it might not be the traditional way we all grew up viewing what marriage is, but what is traditional these days? I don’t have a ‘traditional’ family like I grew up in because I am divorced. Does that make me a bad person or a rotten parent? Not a chance. Whatever makes your life happy is no business of a law-maker. If you’re gay and you want to get married, big deal. Bigger eggs to fry, Rhode Island!
“It should not be for us a source of embarrassment that we are the only state that does not recognize gay marriage. It should be a source of pride,” Bishop Thomas J. Tobin
A source of pride in this state would be to get people out of the unemployment lines. Perhaps some of the fine members of the legislation could pass their recent pay raises over to a few of the families who have no source of income due to layoffs and business closing. Pass the bill in the Senate making prostitution illegal and get rid of the ‘spas’ that are a mosh-pit of human trafficking. Never mind the fact that they do
not pay taxes, making the only stimulation they cause is in the pants of the paying ‘Johns’.
I am not positive who is the real Ass Hat here. Is it the government for spending too much time focusing on keeping gay marriage illegal instead of getting us out of a financial shit hole? Whether you support gay rights or not, would you rather have a married gay couple working, paying taxes and spending their money in Rhode Island or are you in favor of legal prostitution that does nothing to stimulate the economy? Not to mention the overall health issues and well-being of the women forced into slave-like situations.
Perhaps there needs to be a shift of focus in our legislature here in the Ocean State. Focus on what matters. If not, more businesses will close or exit the State. People will end up homeless if they are not already. Libraries will cut back hours even more so people who can’t afford to buy books will not be able to enjoy them for free. Schools will have to cut more programs so that students will be short changed on a well-rounded education.
This week’s Ass Hat Award goes to the Powers That Be in Rhode Island: those who have the power to change the state of the State. Get to work on the RIGHT issues because right now I am feeling like an Ass Hat for living here.
Lucie – could you please find the address for this powerful Homosexual Lobby? I’m gay but I haven’t been able to get a copy of the homosexual agenda that the conservatives like to discuss so often.
You are very wrong about gays in a civil union enjoying equal benefits to a married couple. Just one of many examples – a gay couple in a civil union cannot benefit from the reduced tax rates of a Federal joint tax return.
Since your opposition to gay marriage is “religious”, do you feel just as strongly that Red Lobster and such places that serve shrimp and other shellfish should be denied a business license? Shellfish consumption is condemned as an abomination. Where are you on that since your sense of justice and equity is based on your religious beliefs?
btw – I wouldn’t want to marry my partner if it were legal but I think those who want to marry are entitled to that right just like any straight couple is entitled to do so.
I agree in so many ways! Seems like politicians have the innate ability to focus on the wrong issues!
I presented a lot in my two looooong postings, true, but if you endure and read ‘em through, I think you’ll see I covered your eloquent and relevant points, Ken .
Prostitution has been legal in Rhode Island all this time and nobody told me! Oh well, air fare to Vegas is probably cheaper anyway.
At least you have your neighboring States putting some peer pressure on Rhode Island. We’re having a heck of a time down here. MD gets close to legalizing same sex marriage but never quite gets there. DC is in a battle to simply recognize same sex marriages performed in other States. VA – forget it.
I think the movement is gaining momentum, though.
Now, to Lucie. I’m getting that the thrust of your position is that marriage should be a special arrangement between a man and a woman. I’ll assume you mean one man and one woman…or we could check into polygamy (contractual and unrecognized) and polyamory (non-contractual).
I agree that the “M” word has some power within it and I think that may be a huge driver to the movement. However, there are some contractual benefits to marriage that don’t exist even within the context of a civil union. Being a real estate guy, I know that home ownership or the ownership of any real estate is recognized differently between a “husband/wife” relationship (i.e., married couple) and others who are not married, whether it is a parent and child or business partners or good friends.
There are also inheritance issues and, since we know most marriages end in divorce, there are also property and financial issues involved in the relationship/marriage. And that’s before we start talking about children.
The bottom line is that marriage is really more than “a word” (otherwise I would still be “living in sin” with my wife…trust me on this).
DB, feel free to ban me from your blog if I am breaking any “rules” by commenting again, commenting too long, or sound like I’m inciting argument; I’m new here. But this one issue that emerged from your more general blog really inspires defense in me.
Susan, I am no religious zealot, but the religious and moral voice is NOT the minority; the homosexual lobby is most definitely the minority. It just sounds loud.
There has to be a point at which what is legal and what is religious is divided and separated. Multi-marriage is civil. As you point out, it is not religious. Historically, the union between one man and one woman is marriage, with its foundation solidly religious. There is no debate. The problem is the State (again, any secular government, not RI) copped the term for the religious sacrament and applied it to what the State can do – recognize the legally binding contract between the man and woman. I have a civil union with my second husband. I have no religious blessing, benefit, or even recognition of that second union, just the civil legal bennies.
There is nothing unusual about reserving a word and its specific meaning and symbolism for use by a particular group, to the exclusion of those outside the group. Need a couple of examples? How about the “N” word? Few would argue that Blacks don’t “own” that word, to the exclusion of non-Blacks. More to the point of this topic, how about “queer”? That word originally meant odd and quirky. As a heterosexual, even using that word in its proper original definition would now be seen as a homosexual slur. It’s definition and meaning has been twisted into something else, and is now “owned” by homosexuals, to the exclusion of heterosexuals. Would you disagree with either of those examples?
Well, for millions of religious heterosexuals (religious – not just Catholic), marriage is their “N” word, their “queer” – it has a specific meaning and symbolism and can’t be diluted or distorted into something it isn’t by those outside the the group.
Call the union of two people of the same sex something ELSE, and there would be no opposition, I can practically guarantee it.
If it was really only about legal rights and equality under the law, homosexuals would rally around civil union – and face no opposition! But the truth is, homosexuals want the universal social acceptance and “respectability” that comes with the powerful word marriage. THAT is philosophical, and you can’t legislate that.
Reminds me of Rep. Gordon Fox’s comment a couple of years ago: “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”
Great comments. I’m always up for a great debate and I think all points are valid! This is what I love about blogging–there is no right or wrong.
I’m actually in favor of legal prostitution. It’s going to happen anyway, world’s oldest profession and all that, so have it legalized in every state, regulate it, and for god’s sake, TAX it. Heavily. Just like all the other high tax rates for “indulgence” products, like tobacco and alcohol. We need all the revenue we can get in this flagging economy.
Gay marriages? Sure. I’m with your “to each his (or her) own.”
Best of luck turning things around in Little Rhodey. We got it SUPER bad here in Michigan, and just received another blow – GM is closing 1,100 plants in this state – a loss of over 40,000 jobs. Sigh, …
The Old Silly from Free Spirit Blog
Here’s a fact: the legalization of gay marriage has HELPED the economy in MA. Think of all the expenses involved in a wedding, all the businesses involved from the florist to the printer, the baker etc. Not to mention the license fee paid to the city/town! Legalization would not force churches to perform or accept gay marriage. The Catholic church does not recognize the remarriage of anyone who hasn’t gotten an annulment yet it’s perfectly legal to be married and divorced numerous times. It’s way past time to be objective about this issue and tell the churches to mind their own business. Asshats to those politicos who pander to the religious views of a vocal minority.
Wow – that was a lot longer than I intended. Sorry, DB!
The State (any state) has the authority to recognize a legal contract between two entities – businesses or individuals. The government – no government – has the authority to redefine Marriage. The State has no interest in love (nor should it); it’s all about the contract.
What I do not understand is why the homosexual lobby is not satisfied with equal rights under the law; why do they insist on twisting the definition of a word that has great significance and symbolism to a large group of people?
Under the law, I have the same equal rights as a man. However, nothing the State legislates will ever make me a man. I am different. Redefining “man” to accommodate women under the law is ludicrous, right? I have to “settle” for different but equal under the law.
If two homosexuals who want to commit to each other in an exclusive relationship can have that contract legally recognized so they can own property together, have legal rights as next of kin, and enjoy the many tax benefits extended to the legally recognized union of heterosexual pairs, why isn’t that good enough?
I think the State should abolish all reference to “marriage” in all laws and documents, and call the contracts between two people that the State is authorized to legally recognize and legally dissolve “civil union.” Leave “marriage” to the religious heterosexuals for whom that word has such important historical, traditional, and symbolic meaning.
Jenn? The reason a union in which either party is “mentally defective” is null and void is that such a person is incapable of entering into a legally binding, valid contract. Again, love ain’t got nuthin’ to do with nuthin’ when it comes to the State. The State’s only interest is the contract.
I agree with you that many of the legislators in RI are ass hats. I believe that there should be gay marriage. By way of full disclosure, I am a lesbian and want to marry my girlfriend in my home state of RI. I don’t agree with you that we should make prostitution illegal. I have done a film on this, I have met many women in the spas. The women I met were not slaves, and not living in slave like conditions.
Human Trafficking is wrong, and no one would support it, but how or why should we legislate sex between consensual adults where money is exchanged?
We should pass the Human Trafficking Law, but there is no reason to change the prostitution law.
Also, you should read Kmareka.com. There is a woman who blogs about how she was part of the Human Trafficking coalition, but got out of it because they were waging a moral war against the women who make the choice to sell their body. The really interesting part of her post is how the email list sent out a message to oppose a hate crime bill because they couldn’t distinguish between homosexuals and pedophiles.
http://kmareka.com/2009/04/30/big-anti-trafficking-tent/
I hope you come and see my film. It might change your ideas on our prostitution law. http://www.happyendingsdoc.com
Also a brilliant RI law: Any marriage where either of the parties is an idiot or lunatic is null and void. What do you guys have against marriage anyway? Remind me to cancel my “Relocation to Providence” packet.
I have to agree with you. There are far more important issues to deal with while money and energy is being wasted to fight this battle. They need to be creating jobs and helping people keep their homes, instead of fighting something like gay marriage. Like you, I feel it’s to each their own.