by Joe Siegel
EDGE Contributor
Sunday May 11,
2008
The House Judiciary Committee held hearings on four bills
pertaining to GLBT rights on Wednesday, May 7 at the Rhode Island Statehouse,
including a bill which would allow same-sex couples to get married in the
state.
One of the bills heard was the Compassion for All Families Act,
which would give domestic partners the spousal benefits of family medical leave,
nursing home visitation and funeral planning. Another bill, sponsored by House
Majority Leader Gordon Fox, would allow same-sex couples married outside of
Rhode Island to divorce in Rhode Island courts.
A Providence couple,
Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers, were denied the right to divorce by
the state Supreme Court last October. Ormiston and Chambers were married in
Massachusetts in 2004, not long after the first same-sex marriages were
performed there. The Supreme Court ruled that Ormiston and Chambers couldn’t
have access to the Family Court to end their marriage, since the state did not
recognize same-gender marriages.
Ormiston gave impassioned testimony to
the committee about her frustration with the court’s decision and the state’s
refusal to recognize same-sex unions. "Why is it that you feel you can
discriminate against me? A woman with a valid contract. I did not ask any faith
to bless my marriage. I absolutely respect anyone’s right to believe and worship
in any way they choose. But I demand the same right," Ormiston
emotes.
Karen Loewy, a staff attorney for GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and
Defenders) says allowing same-gender couples to divorce was "a simple matter of
fairness and access to justice."
Susan Heroux, of Coventry, appeared with
her wife Stacey and their daughter, to testify in support of same-sex marriage.
The couple married in Provincetown last summer. "When we were filling out our
taxes and we were forced to put single on them, my wife cried," says Heroux. "It
was so upsetting to have to deny our marriage. We felt discriminated
against."
"I absolutely respect anyone’s right to believe and worship in
any way they choose. But I demand the same right."
Opponents of same-sex
marriage who testified at the hearing included Maggie Gallagher, of the National Organization for Marriage,
Deacon Stephen Cote of the Providence Diocese, Nancy Boyce, from the New Life
Worship Center and Daniel Harrop, a psychologist at Brown University. They
claimed same-sex marriage violated Christian doctrine and argued that allowing
gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm children and families.
There
was also testimony regarding a bill which would amend the state constitution in
order to define marriage as between a man and a woman and would nullify any
recognition of marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships between same-sex
partners.
Rep. Jon Brien (D-Woonsocket), who sponsored the bill, insisted
it was not a DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). "There’s no hidden agenda," Brien
says. "Let’s see what the people decide."
Jenn Steinfeld, the director of
Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI), told Brien the rights of a minority should not be put to a vote by the
majority of the state’s citizens. Steinfeld notes there were "hundreds" of
married same-sex couples already living in the state and expressed optimism that
marriage equality would prevail eventually.
"We know we are going to
win," Steinfeld adds.
The state’s top leaders, including Governor Don
Carcieri, a Republican, House Speaker William Murphy (D-West Warwick), and
Senate President Joe Montalbano (D-North Providence) all oppose same-sex
marriage.
Joe Siegel has written for a number of other GLBT publications, including In newsweekly and Options.
2 comments on Gay Marriage Hearings Heat up in Rhode Island
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster











You know what? If the opposers were gay, I'd bet they wouldn't be opposing. It's basically the gay population asking the straight population for permission. I remember when women had to wait for men to decide to allow for women to have more and certain rights. The rights that most people have are what men have decided they can have. In some cases, it was white men, in some cases religious men, in some cases professional men, and in this case it will mostly be straight men. I'm not saying others do not or will not have a say or play a roll, but the majority will again be men and, in this case, straight men.
I hadn't really thought about that before, but you are right! Them bastids!
AJ