Love has made New England complete! Today the Rhode Island Senate passed the marriage equality bill (S 38 sub A), making Rhode Island the 10th state nationally and the last in New England to allow all couples the freedom to marry.
The bill was passed by a strongly bipartisan, overwhelming majority of 26-12.
An amendment offered by Sen. Frank Ciccone to send the bill to the voters as a referendum was handily defeated 28-10.
The House passed a companion bill (H 5015) on January 24 on a 51-19 vote.
The version of the bill passed by the Senate today will be sent to the House for confirmation votes, something House Speaker Gordon D. Fox told Providence Journal could happen quickly enough for the bill to get to the governor’s desk “as early as next week”.
Governor Lincoln Chafee strongly supports marriage equality and has stated that “I will be proud to sign this important legislation when it reaches my desk.”
Before and during the debate, several senators commended marriage equality opponent Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed (D – Newport, Jamestown) for allowing the bill to move through the legislative process unhindered. “I will not vote for it,” she told the Associated Press, “but I have committed to having a full, fair and open debate.”
The first marriage equality bill was introduced into the Rhode Island General Assembly in 1997.
In addition to Rhode Island, marriage equality has been realized in Massachusetts (2004), Connecticut (2008), Iowa (2009), Vermont (2009), New Hampshire (2009), New York (2011), Washington (2012), Maryland (2012), Maine (2012), as well as in the District of Columbia (2009) and 3 tribal jurisdictions.
Yesterday France became the 14th country to legalize same-sex marriage, joining the Netherlands (2001; special municipality of Saba, 2012), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Spain (2005), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Denmark (2012), Uruguay (2013) and New Zealand (2013).
Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend.
Perhaps she can tell the US Senate what that looks like.
As should any anti-equality legislator. She still voted to deny civil and human rights to LGBTQ Rhode Islanders.
Given infinite resources and infinite better candidates, sure.
But, with limited resources, one might instead have a look at the spectrum of legislators in RI which are Dems and take a more holistic approach in deciding whom to primary.
Of course, if a primary opponent emerges who has better values, by all means, go for it!
I think the IL legislature is back from Spring break next week, so fingers crossed.
In addition to those listed above
* Delaware [no state con issue, Dems all the way]
* Illinois [no state con issue, Dems all the way]
* California [courts!]
* New Mexico [what’s the story there — there’s no laws on the books at all about same sex marriage there]
* Hawai’i [no state con issue, Dems all the way]
* Minnesota [no state con issue, Dems all the way]
after that, you run into some combination of state constitution, Republican governors or lege, or a cultural wall. Those states will take a bit more time.
would seem to be Illinois, then Delaware next, in my opinion. As for the other states you mention:
The Minnesota bills to repeal the anti-gay constitutional amendment have made it through House & Senate committees, but not yet floor votes.
The Hawaii bill failed to pass a deadline earlier this year, so is probably dead until 2014.
Bills to explicitly allow or preclude s-s marriage in New Mexico were defeated earlier this year.
Yeah, SCOTUS and Prop 8 – we should know in June!
A bill to repeal Nevada’s anti-gay constitutional amendment was approved by the Senate this week. If it is approved by the House, it’ll have to get approved by the legislature again in 2015, then would be a ballot question in 2016
Signatures are being collected in Oregon to get a measure on the Nov, 2014 ballot repealing the anti-gay constitutional amendment.
I thought the MN prohibition was by statute, not by constitution. So it says on wikipedia, anyway. Clarify?
Minnesota has an anti-equality law, not constitutional amendment. Good catch!