Rhode Island civil union bill passes, but pleases no one

The Rhode Island Senate passed a civil union bill 21 to 16 on Wednesday, June 29, which the governor has said he will sign but which LGBT civil rights advocates are not happy with and are urging he veto.

The bill, passed by the House in May, states that it would give same-sex couples the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as married opposite-sex couples. But LGBT groups say an amendment providing for extensive religious exemptions from the law “legalizes discrimination against the very status and protections it creates.”

Marriage Equality Rhode Island and several leading LGBT advocacy organizations sent a letter to Governor Lincoln Chafee (I) June 28, asking him to veto the civil union legislation if it includes the amendment. They said the amendment would allow religiously-affiliated “hospitals, day care centers, schools or cemeteries to openly and intentionally discriminate against civil union spouses.” Hospitals, they say, “could refuse to allow a spouse to visit their dying partner or make medical decisions in an emergency situation.”

Fourteen state representatives sent a similar letter to Chafee the day before.

The civil union bill has been a disappointment to many LGBT advocates from the start because a bill for full marriage equality was dropped in April after it failed to gain enough support, even though Democrats hold large majorities in both chambers and Chafee, a long-time supporter of LGBT equality, said he would back it.

But one of the marriage equality bill’s sponsors, openly gay House Speaker Gordon Fox (D), said in a statement in April that “there is no realistic chance for passage of the bill in the Senate,” where Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed (D-Newport) opposed it. Fox said he would not move forward with a vote in the House.

The Providence Journal newspaper also reported that Fox said he did not have the votes to pass the bill even in the House, where Democrats hold 65 seats to Republicans’ 10.

Fox instead sponsored the bill for civil unions, a decision that did not go over well with LGBT groups, even before the religious exemption amendment. Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI) held a rally at the State House to protest Fox’s decision to drop the marriage equality bill. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and other groups issued statements criticizing Fox’s decision and calling it “completely unacceptable.”

But the civil union bill went to the House floor on May 19, where Rep. Arthur Corvese (D-North Providence) introduced the amendment regarding religious exemptions.

The amendment exempts religious organizations, religiously affiliated charitable or educational organizations, and their employees, from solemnizing civil unions and from providing related services, facilities, or accommodations.

Religious exemptions were included in New York’s recently passed marriage equality bill, but the Rhode Island amendment goes further and exempts the organizations and individuals from treating civil unions as valid in any way, if to do so goes against their “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

There was little debate before the House voted 63-6 to include it in the final bill, which they then passed 62-11.

Chafee, although he supports full marriage equality, has said he will sign the civil union bill.

Interestingly, even opponents of marriage equality oppose the civil union bill. Chris Plante, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage chapter in Rhode Island, issued a statement, saying that civil unions were “a clear threat to the definition of marriage” and to religious liberties.

On June 29, the same day that the civil union bill passed the final legislative hurdle in Rhode Island, Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality, New Jersey’s leading LGBT political group, filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, claiming that the state’s existing civil union laws do not provide them with full equality.

Two other states—Connecticut and Vermont—also won marriage equality after their highest courts ruled that civil unions were insufficient in providing equal rights and benefits.

4 Responses to Rhode Island civil union bill passes, but pleases no one

  1. Francoise says:

    Wow! Imagine that. Little ol’ Rhode Island standing firm! Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! See what I mean: give them the proverbial inch and they take the infamous mile. Solidarity Rhode Island!!!

    The LGBT advocates in little Rhode Island are doing what should have been done a long time ago. Tell them to take their theocratic gay Jim Crow law and stick it where the sun don’t shine. See you in court. The solution to one unconstitutional law is not another unconstitutional law.

    But why do journalists do this?: “Two other states—Connecticut and Vermont—also won marriage equality after their highest courts ruled that civil unions were insufficient in providing equal rights and benefits.” Why do you do this?

    The crux of the issue here is not whether separate is equal (though that’s part of it). The issue is the First Amendment church and state issue.

    These Orwellian bureau-babble “religious liberty” exclusions are just more example of the propaganda beneath a dull facade. We all know what they really mean: exemptions from what is first in the Bill of Rights, first in the First Amendment, and first in our Constitution, because it was first and foremost on the founding father’s minds: Jefferson’s wall of separator. Exemptions from the essence of our constitutional bedrock.

    Win or lose, BRAVO to Rhode Island activists! This is the way it’s supposed to be. DO NOT COWER AND RUN FROM THE FIGHT. STAND AND FACE THE BULLIES! BECAUSE THE MORE YOU CONCEDE THE MORE THEY TAKE.

  2. John says:

    Well I am afraid I must agree with Arouete. The Stonewall drag queens had more cajones than most of today’s LGBT activists. Like Larry Kramer, I too want to know “WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?” Solidarity Rhode Island! Stand firm!

    These exemptions are blatantly unconstitutional. They can not pass muster. And even any ‘unseverability” penalty should be struck down under the rationale of Romer v. Evans as against public policy. These are face-saving devices. Legislatures surely know these provisions will be struck down. That’s how they get off the hook. “activist judges” you see, overtiring the “will of the people and the legislature” and all that balderdash.

    All of this nonsense is to resurrect the dead culture wars just in time for the next election. Obama is, wisely, not going for the tainted bait. He knows it’s going to SCOTUS and he will not (can not) stick his neck out for us. I agree with all Arouete has written on the issue but if he wants a second term, Obama must stay above this fray. We are on our own for now. When reason fails just sue the bastards.


  3. Jon John says:

    Like Joan said to Tina, “you have to start somewhere”.

  4. Arouete says:

    @Jon John: “Start”? We have been at this for two decades. We can start by not trashing the Bill of Rights. We can start by showing respect for the First Amendment. We should start from where our Constitution begins.

Leave a Reply