.

I Now Pronounce You Indebted and Bankrupt (Gay Marriage in Rhode Island?)

Rhode Island is already married to overwhelming pension obligations, high poverty, higher unemployment, and worst business business climate. Yet the statehouse is pushing gay marriage.

So, marriage equality is all the rage these days in Providence. Who knows if Divine Providence in the Heavens and throughout the Earth would be inclined to agree, or would decline to permit such a standard.

Governor Lincoln Chafee runs a state with the highest unemployment, the worst business climate, and the most pressing pension obligations in the country, and he wants to let people of the same sex tie the knot? Why not undo the heavy burdens marriage in the first place by wholly removing the government from holy matrimony? Besides, tying the knot is not a prerogative of the government. Marriage does not belong to the state, and there is no state less qualified to discuss commitment about anything that Rhode Island. The Ocean State political class has not been faithful to her share-holders, her taxpayers, and even the many people who are barely making it on whatever they can get from public thievery or private charity.

Marriage, like the rearing of our children or the feeding of men and women, does not belong to the government. The first time that civil unions were instituted ("civil union" is a euphemism since any growth or encroachment of the government into a higher institution is neither civil nor unified), the Prussian "Iron Chancellor" Otto von Bismarck created it because he was fighting against the political power of the Catholic church in the German states. In a domestic policy move which historians have termed "Kulturkampf", or "culture war", Bismarck wanted to remove the private authority of the separate Catholic authority over the unions of men and women. As a matter course, the notion of two men or two women marrying each other was unimaginable in the mid-to-late 1800's

Unlike the Catholic priests in the German states, Protestant ministers were paid by the German princes or the regional governments. Hence, there was no real religious liberty in Germany for decades, aside from the Catholic churches, where congregants did not respect the religious preeminence in their prince or their king. Instead, they regarded the traditions of their church communities and the preeminence of the Pope. Bismarck would not brook any dissent in his planned unified Germany, so he required that Prussian couples receive a license from the state in order to "tie the knot".

Bismarck wanted to subjugate the Catholic Church as a crowning achievement for the unification of all German states to the Prussian Crown. The Catholic Southern German regions resisted unification, in part because the power base and legacy of regional rule remained strong. Only after the Franco-Prussian War, which pitted an easily-slighted France against the German war-machine, did Prussian Prime Minister Bismarck establish the requisite alliances to bring together all the German states under one federal government. Just to rub it in, King Wilhelm of Prussia was crowned Kaiser Wilhelm in the "Hall of Mirrors" in Versailles. Following this unification ceremony, civil unions spread throughout the remaining German states.

Bismarck's legacy of government overreach into the private sacrament of marriage continued in the United States.  Managing-and-controlling progressives wanted to track the health of individual couples getting married. This insulting policy proceeded from the notion that a man and a woman were so incompetent, that they would blindly marry a blood relative or a spouse with a devastating venereal disease. This nanny-state intervention held a shot gun to the institution, and so marriage licenses were required from the early 1900's to this day.

Today, the vocal gay minority wants to change the definition of marriage and force private institutions to recognize their diverse unions. Another bullying power grab which abuses the power of the state, gay marriage (and straight marriage, for that matter) should not be the battleground of today's culture wars. Rhode Island founder Roger Williams established his colony on toleration and religious liberty. The state's requirement that all unions be defined, determined, and dedicated by the government is another step away from religious liberty and toward state-sponsored tyranny in the name of "marriage equality" (a malapropism, since a good marriage is not about equality, but mutual submission between partners).

Leaders in the Providence statehouse have no right, reason, nor respect to play Providence in the state of Rhode Island or in anyone's house. Rhode Island leaders should be wedded to divorcing the citizens from the state's outrageous pension obligations instead of stepping to who marries whom.The Ocean State's conservative communities, of which there are more than most politicians or media elites realize, and the Rhode Island GOP should demand that their government respect the institution of marriage and leave it alone. They have no authority to pronounce men and women "man and wife", since the leaders in Providence will have to pronounce their state "indebted and bankrupt" very soon because of their inability to keep their vows to maintain the soundness and stability of Rhode Island.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Tiverton Dad January 25, 2013 at 05:19 PM
Agreed. Someone local truly has a stake in what the RIGA decides on this issue. The motives of someone from California are far less clear. Readers should not be mislead to faulty assumptions.
Tiverton Dad January 25, 2013 at 05:23 PM
Jack, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. At least I hope it's intentional.
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 05:30 PM
Nah Kinda logical, hardy dimwitted though, which I fail to why you call me that either. Sorry if it does not make sense to you, but for most I know your arguement is much ado about nothing when the answer is not post to on a blog from a person you consider infringing on your local area. Kinda simple to me anyway ;-}.
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 05:40 PM
Oh sorry besides Logical, also sarcastic for the most part. ;-}. Think you are wrong on the patch, since it is a kind of local issue and your argument is that this guy should say he is national or the patch should, I still fail to see what it matter as far as the issue it self goes. It is like saying a gun rights advocate or a anti-gun advocate from another state can not put their 2 cents in on a State that is considering banning weapons or de-regulating weapons. Would you not like to hear all voices no matter where they are from.? I suspect you would. What one State does can and does make other States look at it inorder to see if they to could use the language in a law passed by another State. The Immigration Law in Arizona ended up producing many laws in other States that passed Constitutional Muster because if was easy to refine those laws after seeing the rulings on the Arizona law and making adjustments. I could give examples all day long. Though I would then be lambasted as usual as an old foggy and such who spends to much time on line lol.
Tiverton Dad January 25, 2013 at 05:40 PM
C'mon Jack, I never said that. I don't have any problem if the author publishes the exact same blog, word for word, on this or any other Patch. I was suggesting that PATCH not mislead readers into thinking he is a "local voice" with local concerns. I suggested "National voices" which you decided to overly parse and dissect. Fine, you don't like my suggestion. How about "Non-local Voices"? At least that would be accurate.
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 05:47 PM
Have to agree I did dissect it lol. I also suspect all this will be deleted as off topic lol. I further suspect the patch will never make a section for national voices on a system that is based on local vioces no matter what local it is from, since the 25 or 28 States the patch is in are all connected for anyone to post on them. Opps still dissecting, my bad lol. On another note, just curious as to why this appears to be bothering you so much ;-}.
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 05:52 PM
Also my examples prove the nighmare of the patch were they to start a national voice as how do you determine that with my examples of tourist wanting to write a blog on the patch about thier visit to a State they do not live in whether just a Store in RI, or a weekend visit to Newport or somewhere. My point is that you cannot. It creates micro editing and determination that would overload the editors, those making the patch more confusing then you think this is. Itteresting how it can be an actual very in depth debate on such a petty issue, remind me of poltics in Congress and the State house on the Tanning bed law debate I watched lol.
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 05:58 PM
Think I will stick with the old "Tip O'neil" Quote about political issue that are National. "All politics are Local", because lets face it the guy was right.
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 05:59 PM
TIV; Think we beat this dead hourse enough yet lol.
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 06:01 PM
Hmmm; A requirement by the Patch that you begin tyour blog with Non-Local Voice if you are from another Stae. Ok I guess that one would work. See when you disect something and acually debate all the senario's you come up with a simple solution that the Patch can do by just putting that in its TOS. LOL Good job TIV.
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 06:03 PM
See it only took a day to get the solution. Wish politician could do that ;-}
Jack Baillargeron January 25, 2013 at 06:30 PM
TIV; Didn't say you were lambasting. some are some are not. I said Those that are. Just for clarity ;-} "Have to disagree with those that are lambasting the guy or the Patch for Out of State Bloggers"
Just Another Taxpayer January 25, 2013 at 07:02 PM
This author should not be considered a local voice. I agree with Ted and Tiverton Dad's comments regarding the inappropriateness of this person be labeled a "local voice".
Arthur Christopher Schaper January 25, 2013 at 07:37 PM
Olga Enger 11:02 am on Friday, January 25, 2013 "Tiverton Dad, the blogger addresses a local issue and local government, gay marriage in Rhode Island." Thank you, Olga! I appreciate the generosity of your editorial staff for allowing me to comment. I am convinced that the only reason some people are complaining is that they do not agree with me, but they are unable or unwilling to articulate a different position. I am saddened that some posts resorted to empty attacks or name-calling, but such is the price for making a worthy point. Thanks again!
Dale Clark January 25, 2013 at 09:26 PM
It seems like this state is hell bend on letting the religiist groups control the direction of our cities and state?What ever happened to the seperation between church and state?If the churches are hell bent on flexing there might on the will of the people they to should be taxed as any other group,lobbyist,business and the like.
Maria Cabral January 26, 2013 at 03:07 AM
A.C.S.: So, you've read some posts by Patch readers and you're "convinced" that people are complaining *only* because they don't agree with you? Is that right? What specific evidence did you see that "convinced" you? Do you think it could also be possible that people are objecting to the way you've presented your ideas because you've shown almost no knowledge of RI, its citizens, and its government? I can only speak for myself, but I'll hazard a guess that a big question on people's minds is this: Have you ever even been to RI? If so, which towns did you visit? Which was your favorite and why? If you haven't been to RI, does it mean anything to you that I have lived and worked in CA, but that I wouldn't dare write a blog in the Santa Monica Patch criticizing CA's fiscal policy and its governor? Does it make an impression that I wouldn't do this because I don't want people to think I was poking my nose where it didn't belong on subjects I don't know enough about? Or that I wouldn't do it because, as a non-resident, I'm not qualified to ask people to listen to my opinions concerning the intricacies of their state's legislative process? Or, because I realize that I shouldn't be wasting people's time with poorly conceived analogies concerning institutions and leaders which might be important to them? And did you really just refer to our governor as "Linc"? Wow, it looks like I just tried to articulate a position. Are you following along, Golden State boy?
Maria Cabral January 26, 2013 at 03:09 AM
Arthur Christopher Schaper said: -- I am saddened that some posts resorted to empty attacks or name-calling, -- but such is the price for making a worthy point. As an "attack", I thought my parody of the thought process(es) that go into the creation of one of your blogs turned out pretty well. A few other readers -- on both sides of the issue I might add -- seemed to think so too. In fact, I would consider my first post on this topic to have been a robust, meaty, firm, round, and fully-packed attack, i.e., anything but "empty." Still, I'll admit I'm biased. Will you stand and admit a similar weakness, brother? Concerning name-calling, I thought I hadn't done it, but I checked and indeed I called you a "professional pot stirrer". Even though I provided evidence as to why I think this is true, I probably should have said that you are *behaving* like a professional pot stirrer, which would have focused on the actual problem, instead of making me vulnerable to your comments. I'll try to do better next time. Other than that, I think the fun is done. It's colder than a bucket of penguin poop here in Rhode Island, so we'll all understand if you need to trot on back into your sunny little house in sunny little Torrance any ol' time. I think your cocoa is ready.
Jack Baillargeron January 26, 2013 at 05:25 AM
lol. Maria you made my Night I had not heard that one before "bucket of penguin poop ". Much better than the the witch one lol. I can use that one in front of children lol. Cracking me up. Does make me wonder who the person is and whaqt they get paid at the South Pole for doing poop patrol though lol.
Arthur Christopher Schaper January 26, 2013 at 07:18 AM
Thank you, once again, RI Patch editors. Thanks again, Jack Baillargeron.
Arthur Christopher Schaper February 02, 2013 at 11:30 PM
I can believe that you resort to condescending remarks. You have nothing credible to argue with. If you disagree with the style and the subtance of the post, then that is your choice. If all you have is insults and attacks, then truly you have nothing worthwhile to share. Thanks for writing.
Arthur Christopher Schaper February 02, 2013 at 11:31 PM
Renee Cwiek: "I don't feel the need to defend my views on The Patch." She wrote this comment because she is unable to defend her views.
Renee Cwiek February 02, 2013 at 11:56 PM
Nice try trying to stir the pot again a little Arthur. Unfortunately, I don't take bait that easily.
Naome Lixes February 03, 2013 at 12:24 PM
I understand Glenn Beck is forming a modern day incarnation of Galt's gulch. Perhaps you would find receptive audience for what amounts to nostalgia, there. If there's one thing America does not need, it's another conservative blogger.
Arthur Christopher Schaper February 04, 2013 at 09:05 PM
If there's one thing that America needs, it'sa greater diversity of opinion, plus a reality check. I have provided both.
Just Another Taxpayer February 05, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Too bad you suffer from a lack of humility.
Dan Johnson February 07, 2013 at 05:17 PM
Treating gay couples equally under the law does not redefine marriage. None of the laws that determine "what" marriage is are changed. Only the "who" is expanded. No church can be required to perform any rite they choose not to. Some churches still refuse to marry inter-racial and inter-faith couples. That is their legal right. Some churches already perform same sex ceremonies. Laws that deny equality, deny those churches the right to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. Recognizing legal equality does not require any church to recognize it, but denial of legal equality restricts religious freedom. Marriage provides over 1,138 federal legal rights and protections in addition to the state laws. Gay people want those rights and protections for the same wide variety of reasons straight people demand them for themselves. Marriage has a stabilizing effect on relationships among the many other benefits it provides. But we are talking about the legal civil right of marriage, not the religious sanctification of those marriages. Churches are free to choose the rites they perform and for whom. While some religious congregations recognize marriage equality and perform same sex weddings for their members, they are not required to do so. Marriage can be performed by a judge, county clerk, or Elvis impersonator in Vegas. Recognizing legal equality does not require any church to recognize it, but denial of legal equality restricts religious freedom.
Russell Archambault February 08, 2013 at 12:04 AM
WHY SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE EXEMPT.IM ALL FOR GAY MARRIAGE FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY.ILL GET A KICK WHEN I HEAR STORIES ABOUT WHO GOT THE DISHES AND THE COUCH AND THE EXTRA ROLLS OF TOILET PAPER IN THE DIVORSE AGREEMENT.
Dan Johnson February 08, 2013 at 01:08 AM
Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first gay couple married in Ca, were together 55 years. There are many other stories of same sex couples who have spent a lifetime together. Yet the 48 hour marriage of Brittany Spears, the 8 marriages of Larry King, the 3 of Newt Gingrich, etc, aren't used to justify denying anyone the right to try and try again. Surely equal protection of the law requires gay people have the same right to try to find happiness. For those marriages that do fail, at least there is some protection equally, under the law.
Russell Archambault February 08, 2013 at 02:24 AM
yes I agree equal protection under the law., and big law bills. Everyone should get sucked in the law system.
Dan Johnson April 02, 2013 at 05:45 PM
Harming others by refusing to treat them as you would yourself under the law, goes far beyond a simple difference of opinion. American does not need more prejudice and discrimination. The irrational prejudice you promote causes needless suffering and death around the world.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »