Rhodeachusetts, An Island That Will Not Be: State High Court Rejects Same Sex
Though titled Rhode Island, most Americans understand that this small, but important state is anything but an isolated piece of land. Last week, Rhode Island made even clearer that it is one of many states that make up our country of interconnected politics and interests. The island? It remains only Massachusetts. Now, I realize that many rational people could make compelling arguments that Hawaii is, in fact, an island. After all, its separate islands are entirely surrounded by water. However, after overcoming the horrors of Baher, Hawaii has interlocked its social policy on marriage with that of every other state, save one. Massachusetts, our only state who chose to radically redefine the most important and significant social institution in history, remains alone—our island of same-sex “marriage” (SSM). And, Massachusetts’ most recent Napoleonic effort to add size to its empire has failed. Yes, the nation of Rhodeachusetts shall not be. On Friday, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmatively and forcefully rebuffed the Massachusetts assault on its marriage laws. The advocates of homosexual behavior are undoubtedly puzzled by this decision since, according to their briefs filed in the case, Rhode Island somehow never had any marriage laws. In Rhode Island, GLAD argued that “[t]his divorce action plainly involves a marriage” and that the term “marriage” is somehow “ambiguous.” . . . Of course, ADF’s counterpoint to this argument was that “‘Marriage’ in Rhode Island is not ambiguous and only means the union of one man and one woman—no more and no less.” In answering, the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated as follows: “What is the meaning of the word ‘marriage’ within the Rhode Island statute[] that empowers the Family Court to grant divorces[?] . . . It is clear to us that in this instance we are not confronted with an ambiguous statute. . . . With respect to the case at hand, there is absolutely no reason to believe that, when the act creating the Family Court became law in 1961,[] the legislators understood the word marriage to refer to any state other than ‘the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex.’” (Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion, pp. 4, 7 and 9.) In other words, Rhode Island did have marriage laws, and they were clear and unambiguous. Now, lest you call me a conspiracy theorist, the plans for the SSM nation of Rhodeachusetts were, in fact, orchestrated. Like Dr. Evil and his plans to extort “one million dollars” [done in creepy Dr. Evil voice] from the world’s economies, it all started at the top. Follow the timeline: (a) In Goodridge, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (MSJC) expressly stated that SSM was for Massachusetts, and their decision would go no further than the Massachusetts border: “We also reject the argument . . . that expanding the institution of civil marriage in Massachusetts to include same-sex couples will lead to interstate conflict. We would not presume to dictate how another State should respond to today’s decision.” Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 967. (b) In 2004, then Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, says that SSM won’t go outside Massachusetts’ borders, and that Massachusetts clerks are prohibited from issuing SSM licenses to out-of-state residents where SSM is not the law in their own state. (c) Of course, the advocates of homosexual behavior do not accept this, and file a new lawsuit – Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Pub. Health. The result of this lawsuit is that the MSJC went back on its own word and decided that SSM should go outside its borders to states that somehow didn’t have an express prohibition on SSM (regardless of the clear nature of that state’s marriage laws). (d) Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island Attorney General, and sibling to a sister who openly identifies herself as a “homosexual,” taking his cue from the MSJC, then issues his own opinion about how SSM is not prohibited by Rhode Island law (regardless of the clear nature of Rhode Island’s marriage laws). (e) GLAD then plays its role, releasing its publication on how Rhode Island residents can acquire a SSM. Several same-sex couples, like Ms. Chambers and Ms. Ormiston, flock to Massachusetts for their SSM licenses, all issued by Massachusetts clerks eagerly willing to defy the prior order of their Chief Executive. (f) What’s next? Of course, we now need a Rhode Island case, and Ms. Chambers and Ms. Ormiston were certainly willing to play their part. As a presumptive test case for Rhode Island, their case was cleverly postured as an easily swallowed “divorce,” with no collateral issues involving children, property, alimony, or otherwise. Thus, in the face of overly clear law that “marriage” in Rhode Island was between one man and one woman, the advocates of homosexual behavior elected to ignore the law and conspire to form Rhodeachusetts. An apt analogy would go as follows: After catching her slapping her younger sister, you tell your 4-year-old not to hit her sister anymore. She acknowledges your command, and then proceeds to wallop her younger sister with a pillow. When you scold her again, and ask why she just disobeyed you, she proceeds to explain how your prior command implicitly related only to the usage of her hands, and you never expressly told her that she couldn’t hit her sister with a pillow. So goes the attitudes of those advocating for SSM in Rhode Island. Nevermind that the word “marriage” is clear and unambiguous. Nevermind that a multitude of Rhode Island statutes, regarding marriage and family, clearly and unambiguously use the words “marriage,” “husband,” and “wife” in any way that leads to only one conclusion—one man and one woman. Somehow, if the statutory scheme doesn’t come out and say in black and white that “we don’t want same-sex ‘marriage’ in Rhode Island,” it’s not good enough for the advocates of homosexual behavior. Some things are simple, easy, and uncontroverted. Yet, that would not quash the Rhodeachusetts conspiracy. Fortunately, the Rhode Island Supreme Court saw it for what it was, and refused to accept the invitation to become our nation’s most recent activist court. However, keep your antenna up and on. If Rhode Island had no marriage laws, then neither does New Mexico or Wyoming. Stay tuned for the sagas of New Massachusetts or Massayoming.