Report Inappropriate Comments

Roy you and those who agree with you had every chance to debate and dialog at the meeting. It is no fault that your side had little representation your side failed to bring them out or perhaps as I said before you have much fewer among your members than you think.

I pointed out several issues each time you failed to address them head on rather you threw up smoke screens I keep bringing up these issues knowing that you will failed to directly address them, because by doing show you help strengthen my augments.

Here are some of the issues I brought up and you danced around let see if you can answer them head on.

Which specific terms being thrown out at the meeting confused you?

How is it that others like committee, who clearly have took more time to research the so called rules of the game and the pro and cons than you have are not confused?

Why should we wait for you to catch up to the rest of us to make a decision?

How specifically does the fact that there were more people on the pro side then the con sides of the issue at the meeting mean that the issue was not being spoken about in a “balanced way?

Would you have made the same point if the turnout was the opposite?

Both sides had the same amount of time to let their people know about the meeting. Is it mot possible that one side simply did a better job of organizing and getting people out than the other? If so how is that the commuties fault? Where does the con side play a role in this? Are you telling me that organizations like NOM lack the skills and resourses to bring out large crowds of people?

Could it be that the crowd at Warwick meeting reflect the population of the city? Could it be that you wrongly believed you were in the majority and the turn out at the meeting made you face the fact that you are part of the ever shrinking minority?

Many people have done the research and have found the pros and cons for themselves they did the hard work needed to form an opinion. You have admitted that you failed to do that work. That being the case, why must the city’s decision making must sink to the level of the lowest common denominator when it comes to empirical data about the issue? In this case it seems that you are self admittedly the least educated among us about the issue, despite the fact that you could have used Google to get all sorts of data, or could drive across state lines in to Connecticut, or Mass or any other New England state to gather information.

In your testimony you single out Catholic marriages, this suggest that the only valid marriages are Catholic marriages. Are you discounting all marriages that are not between Catholics or those that took place before the Catholic Church was established?

How would you explain Solomon’s MANY wives in the light of so called “traditional marriage”?

Did you read the proposed law? How do you explain the flowing in the light of your question about the impact of the law on churches?

“This act would allow any two (2) individuals, who are otherwise eligible under chapter 15-1, to marry regardless of gender, while protecting the freedom of religious institutions to make their own decisions regarding marriage eligibility within their own faith’s tradition, without interference from the state. This act would also prohibit any state agency or local government from penalizing any clergy for refusing to solemnize a marriage under this chapter”.

Why should a businesses owned by the Church not be subject to the same laws that any other secular business would be?

Why should there be ANOTHER meeting about this matter

? Why should we forget everything we heard that night? Why should everyone come back? Why do you get a “do over” just because you lost?

From: Marriage equality endorsed at emotional, one-sided hearing

Please explain the inappropriate content below.