Long before civil governments granted marriage licenses, men and women had been getting married for generations.  Most had their unions sanctified in a church or other religious institution.

Yet, too many advocates of gay marriage whine that, until the state acts, they can’t married.  Hogwash.  No, most states still won’t recognize their unions as marriages, but, long before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandated in 2003 that the Bay State recognize same-sex marriages, gay men were living together with their partners — and lesbians with theirs, with many calling their unions marriages and their spouses, husbands and wives respectively.

As I was working on my post on the Washington State legislature’s vote to recognize such unions, I  caught this comment by openly gay Democratic Rep. Jamie Pedersen who backed the legislation:

“I would like for our four children to grow up understanding that their daddy and their poppa have made that kind of a lifelong commitment to each other,” he said. “Marriage is the word that we use in our society to convey that idea.”

You mean, his children wouldn’t recognize that commitment if the state didn’t recognize their union as marriage?  (He’s not the first to make this kind of claim.)  Theirs must be a pretty weak relationship if they need state sanction to show their commitment.

Now, there are many strong arguments to be made for state recognition of same-sex marriage.  Saying that without it the state’s sanction you couldn’t convey your commitment is not one of them.  And yet, that is part of the Ninth Circuit’s argument in overturning Prop 8.

It is important that we distinguish between state recognition of marriage and the institution itself.  And yes, state recognition confers many benefits.

Even without that recognition, gay people remain free to marry.  And state authorities won’t arrest them for doing so.  Or demand that they move to another state.  They just won’t accord them the benefits they offer to different-sex couples who elect marriage.

Yesterday, the Washington State House passed a bill to recognize same-sex marriages, following the action last week of the state Senate.  Governor Christine Gregoire “is expected to sign the measure into law next week.”

This is exactly how states should go about recognizing same-sex relationships, with elected legislators deciding the matter.

In the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s overturning Prop 8 yesterday as unconstitutional, it is important to take a step back from the overheated rhetoric in the debate on state recognition of same-sex marriage — a debate which alas has offered more heat than light — and attempt to offer that light, to illuminate the real meaning of marriage.

Few people do that better than Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn, one “a gay man who has written a book in favor of gay marriage. The other is a straight man who has written a book opposing gay marriage.”  In a piece they penned together last November, Rauch addressed an issue more fundamental than state recognition (what he calls “legal right”).  What seems most important to him

. . is getting marriage right, for all people. Winning the legal right is important for same- sex couples, but it’s hardly the end. Over the long run, will same-sex marriage shore up marriage’s privileged social status, or diminish it? Gay Americans and their communities all have an interest in establishing that their right to marry can support and perhaps even strengthen American commitment to the institution that is now open to them.

Indeed.  They both agree, for example,

. . . that getting married before having children is an important, and embattled, cultural value, which society as a whole should do more to embrace. Similarly, we can agree that the growing phenomenon of “single parents by choice,” whatever its meaning or value in particular situations, is a harmful social trend. Many, probably most, children of single parents do fine. But a large body of scholarly evidence shows that single parenting increases risks for children.

“Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions From the Social Sciences,” a recent summary of evidence from 18 diverse family scholars, concludes that solo parenting “increases poverty for both children and mothers,” is associated with higher levels of psychological problems for children and mothers, and “appears to increase children’s risk of school failure.”

Read the whole thing.

Marriage is a fundamental institution for our society, indeed, for nearly every society in recorded human history.  Until recently, it has always been defined by sexual difference.

Now that has been changing.   (more…)

Here’s the decision.

Decision is by Judge Stephen Reinhardt who is “one of the most-reversed judges before the Supreme Court“.

He just handed the Republicans a campaign issue.  They can make the case that unelected judges should not be resolving issues which the constitution entrusted to legislators — and the people themselves.

UPDATE:  I apologize for this sparse post on a very important topic.  A lot of things on my plate this week.  Let me just summarize my basic views which should be clear from my posts on gay marriage: I’m happy for the couples who can now seek the benefits of state sanction of their unions, but am concerned that we’re now turning to courts to resolve all manner of social issues.

This is not an issue of couples being able to live openly and call themselves married, but of the state recognizing their unions.

I would have different views on the constitutionality issue if states, like Virginia prior to Loving, were preventing gay couples from living openly within their jurisdiction.   Recall that the the loving couple in that case had three choices (1) leave Virginia; (2) get a divorce or (3) go to jail.  The couples in the current case could all still live openly in California — and even seek state recognition of their unions as domestic partnerships.

Just caught this on Memeorandum:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s public information office expects a ruling on Tuesday, Feb. 7 by 10 a.m. Pacific/1 p.m. Eastern Time in the Perry v. Brown case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

“Regardless of how the 9th Circuit rules,” writes Howard Mintz in the San Jose Mercury News, “Tuesday’s ruling is expected to be only a prelude to further legal skirmishing that ultimately is likely to wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.”

If the Ninth Circuit overturns Prop 8, it will be interesting to watch President Obama’s reaction.

The Republican candidates will make political hay from this, by faulting liberal judges for overstepping their mandates.  And they’ll have a point.  This is an issue for state legislatures not federal courts.  And as we saw last year in New York State — and this year in Washington, elected legislators are moving forward on state recognition of same-sex marriage.

And one more thing.  This is not about the right to marry, to live openly with the spouse of your choice, but about state recognition of such unions.  It would be nice if the rhetoric in this debate reflected that reality.

Of all the candidates in Saturday night’s ABC News /Yahoo!/WMUR-TV New Hampshire Republican primary debate, Jon Huntsman offered the best (and most coherent) statement on state recognition of same-sex relationships:

Well, personally, I think civil unions are fair. I support them. I think there’s such a thing as equality under the law.

I’m a married man. I’ve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. Glad we’re off the contraception discussion.

(LAUGHTER)

Fifteen minutes’ worth, by the way. And I don’t feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On — on marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair. And I think it brings a level of dignity to relationships. And I believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. I think they should be part of civil unions, as well. And states ought to be able to talk about this. I think it’s very — I think it’s absolutely appropriate.

Even though he favors the traditional definition of marriage, he believes the state should recognize — and offer benefits to — same-sex civil unions.  Important for us to recognize that someone can oppose gay marriage while also supporting benefits for same-sex couples.

It would be nice if more Republicans could adopt Huntsman’s stand.  Kudos to the Utah Republican for clearly — unambiguously — articulating his support for civil unions.

Based on the commentary of some of my left-of-center gay friends on Facebook last night, the Republican presidential candidates engaged in a hatefest against gay people. I did not watch the debate. I am back in my hometown of Cincinnati and preferred to spend the evening with my brother.

Then, this morning, after spending time with my second youngest nephew and youngest niece, I had a brief break to check the blogs. Reading Jennifer Rubin’s commentary on the debate (in particular that the “ABC moderators. . . were, in a word, horrendous [fixating] on gay marriage and contraception for far too long“), I decided to go to the transcript. I thought Jon Huntsman gave the best answer on gay marriage (more on this anon).

But, although we may not agree with what Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney said, their words can hardly be described as “hateful.” Indeed, both men showed some sympathy for the concerns gay couples have when governments don’t recognize our unions, notably when one partner is hospitalized. I cite Newt first (since he spoke first and since Romney referenced him on hospital visitation rights):

Well, I think what I would say is that we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur. For example, you’re in a hospital. If there are visitation hours, should you be allowed to stay there? There ought to be ways to designate that.

You want to have somebody in your will. There ought to be ways to designate that. But it is a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we therefore are going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis.

The sacrament of marriage was based on a man and woman, has been for 3,000 years. Is at the core of our civilization. And it’s something worth protecting and upholding. And I think protecting and upholding that doesn’t mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding it applies everywhere and it’s just a civil right.

Emphasis added.  In other words, he says pretty explicitly that we shouldn’t make life miserable for gays.  He also makes clear that he believes the institution of marriage is based on the union of a man and a woman and it’s been that way for thousands of years.  Now, let’s turn to Governor Romney:

Well, the answer is, is that’s a wonderful thing to do, and that there’s every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another. That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage or they have to receive the — the approval of the state and a marriage license and so forth for that to occur.

There can be domestic partnership benefits or — or a contractual relationship between two people, which would include, as — as Speaker Gingrich indicated, hospital visitation rights and the like. We can decide what kinds of benefits we might associate with people who form those kind of relationships, state by state.

But — but to say that — that marriage is something other than the relationship between a man — a man and a woman, I think, is a mistake. And the reason for that is not that we want to discriminate against people or to suggest that — that gay couples are not just as loving and can’t also raise children well. (more…)

Just because I criticized various media outlets — and others — who misrepresented Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s exchange with a gay Iowa Democrat (who, by his own logic, should be a big supporter of former Vice President Dick Cheney) does not mean I support the candidate.

Although I have impressed with how the former Speaker has conducted himself in debates and with tendentious reporters, I have a number of concerns about his record and his temperament.  Not just that, he often makes some rather unusual — and unnecessarily polarizing — statements.

For example, in the exchange which excited all the hullabaloo today, he could have told his partisan interlocutor that he should consider all the stands a candidate has taken rather than focusing on just one in making up his mind, that a voter will find that he will disagree with each candidate on at least one issue.

When he recently expressed his opposition to gay marriage, he said:

I believe that marriage is between a man and woman. . . . It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.

He could have simply left off at the word, “history”, but to call a debate that has been going on for at least a decade a “temporary aberration” is simply absurd.  And to contend that the notion “fundamentally goes against everything we know” suggests a lack of imagination on the issue.

Now, to be sure, some radical advocates of gay marriage do want to destroy the institution, but most gay couples who have sought state recognition of their unions as marriages in jurisdictions which allow them to do so share the same values — and aspirations — of straight couples who do the same.  Many elect monogamy.   (more…)

A reader alerted me to an article contending that GOP presidential candidate “Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa[, Iowa] here today that he should vote for President Obama.”  According to Memeorandum, the story is generating quite the buzz in the blogosphere.

Only problem is that the spin of the Democrat who posed the question is at odds with the reality of what the former House Speaker actually said.  He left out a lot of context as the actual video of their encounter reveals:

Here’s what Gingrich actually said:

I think for those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support and I accept that that’s the reality. On the other hand for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their lives, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support.

Emphasis added.  The Republican is not saying to vote for Obama because he’s gay, but to vote for Obama if gay  marriage is the only issue that really matters to him.  As my friend Rick Sincere (who posted the initial article on Facebook) put it:

The man who asked the question spun Gingrich’s response as quite a lot broader than just the marriage issue. Why he would say vote for Obama is a mystery, though, since Obama has said he’s opposed to gay marriage. (Except in 1996, when he was for it.) (more…)

Even though I voted against Proposition 8 in 2008 and believe that voters should overturn it, I think the state Supreme Court got this one right:

The sponsors of ballot propositions can step in to defend their initiatives from legal challenges if the governor and attorney general refuse to do so, California’s highest court said Thursday in a precedent-setting ruling that could prove pivotal to the future of the state’s same-sex marriage ban and its notoriously vigorous citizens’ initiative process.

Responding to a question from a federal appeals court that is considering the constitutionality of the state’s voter-approved gay marriage ban, the California Supreme Court said the lawmaking power granted to citizens under the state constitution doesn’t end once propositions have been approved or rejected by voters.

. . . .

In the 61-page opinion, the seven justices said denying ballot proposition backers a seat at the table would effectively grant the governor and attorney general veto power over initiatives with which they disagreed, a situation the justices said would undermine the law-making powers California gave voters in 1911.

Emphasis added.  Look, I think the California initiative process has been way overused over the years, but the law is on the books.  And a governor’s refusal to defend a law should not prevent supporters of a popular initiative from defending it on constitutional grounds.  This notion also holds for a domestic partnership law passed by the Wisconsin legislature.

“Although” Maura Dolan reports in the LA Times, “the 9th Circuit is not bound by Thursday’s ruling, the decision makes it less likely that the appeals court would decide Proposition 8’s future on narrow, standing grounds.”

More on this anon (as time allows–other things I want to blog on and working on a non-blog related tedious time-consuming project.

Just learned from Michael Petrelis‘s blog (and confirmed via the Sacramento Bee/Associated Press) that Equality California’s (EqCA) new Executive Director Roland Palencia will be stepping down later this week:

The leader of California’s largest gay rights group is leaving his post after only a few months on the job.

Equality California announced Monday that Executive Director Roland Palencia will step down on Friday.

Palencia’s decision comes less than a week after the group said it would not lead a campaign in 2012 to overturn Proposition 8, the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages.

I had meant to blog on the last item, but with the Jewish Holy Days and other stuff on my plate, I haven’t had time to blog.  (And well, in the past few days, haven’t been thinking about politics as much as most of us political bloggers normally do.)  Quickly, don’t think it’s a good idea to put off repeal of Prop. 8.  Given the current polls, a campaign to overturn the ban on state recognition of same-sex marriages could succeed if its leadership included Republicans.  Maybe Mr. Palencia wasn’t willing to work with gay Republicans.

I had refrained form commenting on Palencia’s selection to head EqCA because I had hoped to arrange a meeting between gay conservatives and Palencia and didn’t want to compromise that process.   I had reached out to several individuals close to and involved in the organization.  They were optimistic we could arrange a meeting.  Given that such a meeting seemed possible, I thought we might be more effective if we communicated our concerns privately before criticizing the new leadership publicly.

Perhaps, at a later date — as time allows — I may offer my thoughts on his selection and my hopes for his replacement.

I have no clue why Palencia is stepping down.  All I can say is that it is an interesting development and that I wish him well in his future endeavors.

It’s always fascinating to see how liberals perceive conservatives.  They tend to define us not by our ideas or our most accomplished or eloquent leaders, but by the fringe extremists who cling onto our movement hoping to mean some meaning there.

Yesterday on his eponymous CNN show, Piers Morgan suggested that Tea Party folk harbor some pretty extreme views:

When you see tea party candidates and they are against evolution, climate change, and resolutely so, they think gay marriage is a sin and so on and so on . . . .

Huh? I thought they were primarily concerned about the size of government. If Tea Party critics paid more attention to this phenomenon as it is and not as they imagine it to be, they might realize how diverse are members of the dynamic grassroots movement.

One tea party favorite, U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), announced “this weekend that she opposes a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state“:

Ellmers said that while she opposes same-sex marriages, she believes the proposed amendment goes too far because it would also ban civil unions.

“Congresswoman Ellmers has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution and is defined as the union between one man and one woman,” Ellmers spokesman Tom Doheny wrote in an email to the Raleigh News & Observer. “That is why she has and will continue to protect and defend marriage at the federal level.

“When asked about civil unions, which are different than marriage, she said that she finds nothing wrong with people being granted them, but at the same time, it is currently a state issue and up to the voters to decide,” Doheny said. (more…)

Ed Morrissey doesn’t think so:

Do teachers in public-school systems have a “special ethics” code that prevents them from publicly speaking on policy issues?  Lake County Schools in Florida suspended Jerry Buell, a high-school teacher with a reportedly impeccable record for 22 years, for posting his opposition to New York’s new gay-marriage law, and will start termination proceedings against him.  The case will test First Amendment rights and encroaching political correctness . . . .

The school district suspended Buell, who had been the school’s Teacher of the Year in 2010-11, because they are concerned that gay students might be “frightened or intimidated” in his class.  That’s a pretty thin rationale for punishing someone over what appears to be more or less mainstream opposition to the gay-marriage law.  Even saying the above in a classroom would be a thin rationale for disciplinary action, unless school districts will be taking action against all teachers who talk politics in the classroom, and a Facebook posting is not a classroom speech.

If this were at a private school, then the school would entirely be within its rights to dismiss the man.  But, a public school should only be able to dismiss him if it holds all its teachers to a similar standard, suspending them from publicly speaking out on political issues.

Could Christian students be intimidated if they heard a teacher speak out against the public expression of their faith?

Oh, and one more thing, my favorite political science professor is college was a Marxist who regularly denounced Ronald Reagan and his policies, yet I wasn’t frightened or intimidated in his class, despite my open support of the Gipper.  That professor may have been wrong about politics (and economics), but he could still teach in an even-handed manner — and show respect for those with whom he disagreed.

Do hope the PC police in Lake County, Florida bear that mind as they weigh the case of Mr. Buell.

It is perhaps serendipitous that shortly after completing Joseph J. Ellis‘s American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, I started Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch’s The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America.  Let me just say I recommend both books, the latter more than the former.  Each book considers the defining words of our nation’s founding document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our Creator has endowed us with the rights to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness, that is, they come from the hand of God and not that of man.

Governments do not grant us freedom, but they can (and unfortunately do) limit its exercise.

Wherever I read of activists agitating for the freedom to marry (heck, there’s an organization with that very name), I wonder if they’re familiar with the meaning of the Declaration and of the very idea of freedom itself.

Today, the debate on gay marriage is not about granting individuals the freedom to marry an individual of their same sex, but about whether the state should recognize such unions.  When gay couples marry in states (or countries) which grant licenses for such unions and return to states which do not, they do not suffer the fate the Lovings did in the 1960s.  The authorities do not threaten them with arrest, request that they leave the jurisdiction or demand that they live apart.

They merely fail to grant them the privileges they extend to different-sex couples who have secured a marriage license.  Let us bear this in mind as we debate this most important issue.

Let us not turn to the government as the source of our liberty lest we become dependent on state action to take care of those things we can effect on our own — without their intervention, but be ever vigilant against its encroachments on our liberty.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Grizzly Glenn gets my point and build on it:

Perhaps somebody can explain to me how something that is considered a basic human right, requires a license from State. I don’t have a State issued license for life, liberty, or the pursuit happiness. I have a State issued driver’s license because I have met the requirements to receive one. (more…)

I will shed no tears the day Rick Santorum removes himself from contention for the Republican presidential nomination.  But, his candidacy, quixotic though it may be, has at least done one thing:  helped expose a flawed assumption the media have made in the ongoing debate on gay marriage.

Yesterday, in (on?) National Review’s Corner, this MSNBC headline, “Santorum continues anti-gay rhetoric, takes shot at Bachmann, rest of field” struck Kathryn Jean Lopez. She asked, in the title to her post on the the matter, the same question I ask in the title to this one.

Now, Santorum clearly opposes gay marriage, but that does not necessarily mean he’s anti-gay.  In fact, in 2005, when he was still in the United States Senate, he stood by “director of communications Robert L. Traynham” when the staffer was “outed”, saying in a statement:

Robert Traynham … is widely respected and admired on Capitol Hill, both among the press corps and among the congressional staff, as a communications professional. Not only is Mr. Traynham an exemplary staffer, but he is also a trusted friend confidente to me and my family. Mr. Traynham is a valued member of my staff and I regret that this effort on behalf of people who oppose me has made him a target of bigotry in their eyes.

“It is entirely unacceptable that my staffs’ personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent’s campaign. Mr. Traynham continues to have my full support and confidence as well as my prayers as he navigates this rude and mean spirited invasion of his personal life.”

Seems a man who is anti-gay might would have fired a staffer on learning he was gay.  The folks at MSNBC err in assuming that because someone is opposed to gay marriage, he must also be anti-gay.

We might have a more civil discussion gay marriage if folks in the media — as well as in the gay community — understood the difference.

“Men,” writes David K. Li in the New York Post, “have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar – whether they’re straight or gay.”

While several studies have suggested that there are more gay men than lesbians, there have been more lesbian marriages than gay (male) ones by a margin of 3-to-2.  Since the Nutmeg State, for example, recognized same-sex marriages, “3,252 lesbian couples have wed . . . compared with just 2,053 gay guys.”

It does seem women seek to “nest” more than do men.  Guess some of our male fellows just prefer being the lone wolf.

(This is not the first time I’ve noted this phenomenon, but as I came across the (relatively recent) article while surfing the web, thought I would share it with y’all.)

Perhaps the most depressing thing about the debate on gay marriage is the dedication of gay marriage advocates to demonizing those who oppose state-recognition of same-sex marriages.  With their childish “No H8″ campaign, they contend that people oppose their view because they hate gay people.

No, there are, I grant, some folks who oppose state recognition of same-sex marriages because of their animus against homosexuals, but they do not represent all such opponents.  Many oppose such recognition because they believe marriage should be reserved for different-sex couples.  Indeed, a good number of these folks (but, alas not all) support state recognition of civil unions, similar benefits, different name.

Should we call the legislators in Rhode Island and Illinois “haters” because they moved forward to recognize civil unions for same-sex couples without calling them marriage?

In fact, some who oppose same-sex marriage treat gay people with dignity.  Such individuals have, for exampl,e hosted me in their homes, listened to my arguments, stood with me in hours of difficulty and even let me play (unsupervised) with their kids.  They know gay people aren’t demons; they don’t disapprove of us, it’s just that their understanding of marriage differs from that of gay activists.

Which brings me to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing earlier this week on the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill (that I support) which repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

While I believe Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is wrong to oppose the Act pending before the current Congress, he’s spot on when he takes issue with another supporter of the measure:

One of the witnesses before us today says that DOMA was passed for only one reason: “to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people.”  I know this to be false.  (more…)

Obama Supports Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act:

President Obama is throwing his support behind the Respect for Marriage Act – the bill to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage even for couples married under state law.

Why didn’t he make any effort to repeal DOMA earlier in his term. Just asking.

*or similar legislation

Rudy Giuliani, my guy for 2008, reminds Republicans where our focus should be:

“I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things [e.g., gay marriage] get decided by states,” Giuliani said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’d be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.”

It does seem that the one upside of Obama’s big-government ways is that it has kept the GOP, by and large, centered on the small-government ideas that have defined the American conservative movement at least since the ascendancy of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

The Tea Party has certainly helped out*.

My only quibble with the former NYC Mayor’s comment is his use of the conditional, “We’d be,” he said, “a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.” (Emphasis added.)  I’d use either the present or past tense her, to note how the GOP has been more successful when it sticks to those roots, as many Republicans were in the 2010 elections.

*RELATED: Gay marriage not priority to NH Tea Party Protesters

With a vote of 21 to 16, the Rhode Island Senate approved a measure to grant

. . . legal rights to same-sex partners “without the historical and religious meaning associated with the word marriage,” a statement from the Rhode Island General Assembly said.

“We have made great progress in our goal of providing increased rights, benefits and protections for gay and lesbian couples,” [Democratic state Rep. Peter Petrarca, the bill's sponsor said]

The bill, writes my friend Dale Carpenter

manages to do what nobody else has done: unite supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage.  Marriage Equality Rhode Island says it establishes “second-class citizenry.”  The National Organization for Marriage says it is “disappointing and dangerous.”  Caught in the middle were legislators, including the openly gay head of the state house, and Governor Lincoln Chafee (expected to sign the bill), who predicted this was the most they could do for at least a couple of years.

The New York Times reports that the legislation “was offered as a compromise this spring after Gordon D. Fox, the openly gay speaker of the Democratic-controlled House, said he could not muster enough votes to pass a same-sex marriage bill.”  Despite this compromise, we learn in a press release from “Freedom to Marry” that gay marriage advocates are asking the Ocean State’s governor to veto the bill:

. . . Freedom to Marry and the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) sent a letter late yesterday evening to Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee calling on him to veto the civil union bill currently under consideration if it comes to his desk in its present form.  The bill contains a provision that would allow  religious organizations and their employees to disregard couples’ civil union status, creating unprecedented, onerous and discriminatory hurdles for same-sex couples seeking to take care of one another.

(more…)