Rhode Island to Recognize Everyone's Same-Sex Marriages But its Own

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MadeTheSwitch, May 14, 2012.

  1. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #1
  2. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #2
    Strange indeed. Eventually it will become an economic issue for Rhode Island because of couples taking their wedding money elsewhere.
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Baby steps in the right direction. I reckon if the pro-equality side wins the November referendum in Maine (as looks likely) then marriage equality in RI is a given by the end of 2013.
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #4
    At least it's a small state.

    :D

    BTW, for a Republican, Lincoln Chafee is pretty cool.
     
  5. MadeTheSwitch thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #5
    I've always wondered why such a small area even was a state to begin with. I need to go do some research on the history of that. If the whole country was chopped up into states that small, wow...I guess there wouldn't be room for any stripes on our flag and it would be just composed of stars!
     
  6. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #6
    If my 8th grade history is serving me right, I believe it's because Roger Williams was persecuted in Massachusetts and had to flee somewhere, allowing him to form the "Providence Plantation" as a separate colony.
     
  7. Tinmania macrumors 68040

    Tinmania

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Location:
    Aridzona
    #7
    Well population-wise, it is not at the bottom. It is the 8th least populated state in the USA.

    I would wonder why Wyoming is a state and not a National Park. :)

    On the other hand, if we went by population New York City could contain 8 states the size of Rhode Island. :D

    Make you think though!



    Michael
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  9. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #9
    You might understand if you had some idea of the history of the country. When the English first colonized it, boundaries on each colony were granted by the King of England, and each colony had a british governor. New England alone (which altogether represents probably around 1/30th the area of the continental US) was larger than the entire island of Great Britain.

    People traveled by horseback. Rhode Island was a decent sized area for a single governor to manage -- it would take a full day to travel the entire length of the state, and therefore that's how long it would take for news or military orders to reach the interior of the state form the coast. And being one of the earlier states and very much coastal, it probably had as many residents as the much larger colonies like New York or Pennsylvania. Each colony subsequently became a state.

    When the original 13 states were incorporated into states (from the original colonial territories) the vast majority of residents were settled right along the Atlantic coast rather than towards the interiors of the larger states like NY, PA, VA, or NC; or along major rivers that ran to the Atlantic (such as the Hudson, Delaware, Potomac, Charles). Without trucks, and with rough land and roads, the most efficient way to transport goods and supplies was by boat.

    The larger states of the midwest and west weren't even delineated into territories until after the advent of the railroad and telegraph (which obviously enabled faster travel and communication over those large distances). In the first half of the 19th century, even Tennessee was largely unsettled frontier.

    ----------

    When the gov't originally distributed security funds after 9/11 they were distributed based on land area rather than on population or risk.

    No, really.

    So 8 cattle in some patch of Wyoming desert that nobody would ever bother attacking got as many dollars to protect them as 8 million people in NYC.
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10

    Yeah, half a trillion spent on BS.

    Go read the introduction to this book at Amazon.

    http://www.amazon.com/Drift-Unmoori...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337111260&sr=1-1
     
  11. localoid, May 15, 2012
    Last edited: May 15, 2012

    localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #11
    Great post, but Rhode Island's population at the time of the Revolution was much smaller than either New York or Pennsylvania (and several other states). See table, below, from Slavery in the United State:
     

    Attached Files:

  12. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #12
    Touché. Still had more than Delaware. ;)
     
  13. chris200x9 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    #13
    Rhode Island got gay married?! To who Massachusetts?
     
  14. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #14
    Maryland of course :p
     
  15. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #15
    Long Island would be a better fit up Chesapeake Bay, unfortunately L.I. isn't a state. :(
     

Share This Page