Fox: Gay marriage vote still set for 2013 despite Senate losses

September 12th, 2012 at 2:29 pm by under Nesi's Notes, On the Main Site

the Rhode Island Senate Chamber

Gay-marriage supporters tried and failed to make a breakthrough in the Rhode Island Senate during Tuesday’s primaries, winning just two of seven targeted races and coming up short in their marquee effort to knock off Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Michael McCaffrey.

Both McCaffrey, whose committee has never taken a vote on gay marriage, and another endangered incumbent – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Dan DaPonte – survived spirited challenges. Their victories will bolster the leadership team of Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed, who succeeded Joe Montalbano in 2008.

That puts Paiva Weed on a collision course with her fellow Democrat House Speaker Gordon Fox, who told WPRI 12 earlier this year he will call a vote on gay marriage in early 2013. Fox spokesman Larry Berman said that hasn’t changed.

“Speaker Fox has repeatedly stated that he will bring marriage equality for a vote in the House early in the 2013 session,” Berman told WPRI.com on Wednesday. “Several pro-marriage candidates were elected yesterday and that strengthens Speaker Fox’s vote in the House.”

“The results of any Senate races are irrelevant to his pledge to bring marriage equality legislation to a House vote,” he added. Senate spokesman Greg Pare confirmed earlier this week that Paiva Weed’s position on same-sex marriage hasn’t changed, though she’s never ruled out a vote.

Fight Back RI, the gay-marriage group that endorsed candidates, notched two victories in Senate races. Adam Satchell defeated Sen. Michael Pinga 58% to 42% and Ryan Pearson defeated James Spooner 68% to 32%. But Bob DaSilva, Lewis Pryeor, Gene Dyszlewski, Laura Pisaturo and Dave Gorman all lost.

The House was a different story – seven of Fight Back RI’s 12 candidates won, including non-incumbents Joseph Almeida, Gregg Amore and Marvin Abney, while Libby Kimzey, Jon Restivo, Peter Petrarca, Michael Morin and Charles Tsonos all lost. Fight Back RI’s Ray Sullivan said the group had “a tangible impact.”

“We changed the discourse of this campaign and we elevated the discussion around an important civil rights issue,” Sullivan said, citing two senators – DaPonte and Central Falls’ Elizabeth Crowley – who announced support for same-sex marriage during their races and McCaffrey’s statements about the process.

“There is an absolute path – a demonstrable path – to 19 votes in the Senate, and now with Senator McCaffrey having said on your air that he has no problem with … calling a vote, we see great opportunity in the general election and look forward to helping elect a pro-equality majority in the Senate and having the vote occur in 2013,” he said.

People for Rhode Island’s Future, a new gay-marriage advocacy group backed by the Denver tech magnate Tim Gill, also lost five of the six races it targeted on Tuesday after spending about $36,500 on them. Satchell was the only one of that group’s endorsed primary candidates who won.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “Fox: Gay marriage vote still set for 2013 despite Senate losses”

  1. downsized54 says:

    Hopefully your gone in November 2012.Its about jobs Fox jobs.Your main issue is sick and perverted.

  2. Bill says:

    It is worth noting that several of the senators who survived only did so by a very slender margin. That sends a message, even if they were not booted off. The Senate leadership needs to figure out whether it wants to be at permanent war over this because the pro-equality forces will come back again and again until a vote is taken.

  3. Ed says:

    There are more pressing issues than gay marriage. How about elminate social services, outsource public services, cut taxes, give school vouchers and basically make Rhode Island a nice state to reside.

    1. Gary47290 says:

      Marriage equality is a a very pressing issue if you are part of a same-sex couple and want to protect your family. Excluding same sex couples does nothing to protect marriage.

  4. Bob says:

    Just vote yes and be done with it.
    I don’t really like it, but that’s my problem not theirs!

  5. Uneducated says:

    Downsized, get an education. It’s “you’re gone”.

  6. Jack Klark says:

    Any president of the united states.

  7. Jake says:

    Let them vote.

  8. Louis E. says:

    Vote no until the advocates of “equality” give up.
    There is a state interest in guaranteeing preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships and civil marriage serves no purpose unless it furthers that interest.

    1. carlsan says:

      Advocates for equality will NEVER give up.

    2. Gary47290 says:

      Wrong. The state has compelling interest in a stable safe Rhode Island, and stable households assist that goal. Further, many same-sex couples have children – from a prior hetero relationship (gee, just like the straights) or from adoption (gee, just like the straights, plus Gay couple adopt many special needs children that are the throw-away offspring of irresponsible heteros), or assisted reproduction (gee, just like the straights)

  9. billy Wingartenson says:

    all the repubs here forget what happened in NH when they tried to end marriage there. the repubs thought they had a solid majority , and did potentially have the votes to overide even a veto

    BAsically, about 2/3 of the repubs supported marriage equaliy, along with most dems.

    Those opposed should stop looking in the mirror and wake up. The world is changing.

    Ten years from now most of the country will look upon the past treatment of gays the way most good people (not the kluxers) look at the treatment of black people.

    If the repubs want to commit political suicide, thats their priveledge

    Even the Kcchs – staunch repubs support marriage equality.

  10. Good day very nice web site!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I’ll bookmark your web site and take the feeds additionally?I’m satisfied to seek out numerous useful info here within the post, we’d like develop extra strategies on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .