Rhode Island Governor Vetoes Burial Rights For Gay Couples

An Empty Place Where His Heart Should Be

It seems like such a simple act of compassion - allowing the partners of committed same-sex couples to make funeral arrangements for their significant others.  But according to Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island, bestowing this small but vital legal right to gays and lesbians will somehow "degrade" traditional marriage.  From the Providence Journal:  An opponent of same-sex marriage, Governor Carcieri has vetoed bill that would have added "domestic partners'' to the list of people authorized by law to make funeral arrangements for each other.  In his veto message, Republican Carcieri said: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue." 

The conservative politician said he considers the "preferred approach" to address equality - or rather, gross inequality - is to put the matter of full-blown domestic partnerships before Ocean State voters, who at this time would probably nix the idea.  As Carcieri well knows.

The legislation defines a domestic partner as someone who was in an "exclusive, intimate and committed relationship" with the deceased and had lived with him or her for at least a year prior to the death; is at least 18, not married to anyone else, not related by blood and who was financially "interdependent'' with the deceased as evidenced, for example, by a joint mortgage, shared credit card or domestic partnership contract...  (That sounds reasonable to me - and it's precisely how many corporations set the standard for offering DP benefits.)  Carcieri cited at least two other reasons for his veto.  As written, he said the bill would allow the decisions of a "partner'' of a year to take precedence over "traditional family members,'' and he believes a "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals..." 

This is downright insulting when you consider the vast array of rights and benefits that are awarded to opposite sex couples the very instant that they say "I do."  There's no "waiting period" for heterosexuals before their bond is considered "serious."  Also, some of those "traditional family members" hovering on the sidelines are only interested in getting their hands on the deceased's assets - and they'll be the first to exclude a same-sex partner from participating in the funeral.

Carcieri said he was also uncertain "how it would be ascertained in many circumstances whether [a couple] had been in a relationship for year'' since there is "no official or recognized form'' of domestic partnership agreement in Rhode Island.  He called this proviso "vague and ill-defined.''  (Au contraire.  The Republican governor's attempts to justify his anti-gay animus are "vague and ill-defined.")

This law was meant to address just one inequality faced by same-sex couples, where the death of a loved one is rendered doubly tragic by the anti-LGBT agenda of right-wing pols.  In vetoing this legislation, the Rhode Island governor, bowing to his conservative base, demonstrates a total lack of humanity.  And a surplus of mean-spiritedness.

Comments

[Carol]

You're correct about some family members of gays being only interested in the money... and then the partner gets the shove. Every time the religious right talks about how they have no objection to GLBT people getting certain rights like hospital visitation, I just roll my eyes. These people have not a shred of kindness.

[Aggie, Fair Haven, Vermont]

O.K., Maine, California, AND Rhode Island on my sh*t list.

[Philip]

Even with the suitcase full of legal documents gay folks are supposed to haul around, we're still not protected. The "real" family always takes precidence and will continue to do so until samesex marriage is made legal... but even so, this governor needs to check into the nearest hospital for a conscience transplant.

[Rick Cain]

I thought the states up there were liberal? What's wrong with you blue states, why do you elect these retards?

[Scott Carney]

Funnily enough this is from a state where the mayor of the capital city is openly gay (David Cicilline) and has effectively legalized prostitution.

-a proud, and slightly confused, Rhode Islander

[Rich]

wouldnt this apply to heterosexual couples as well? i dont see any verbage that is anti-gay. And his resons for veto are fair... do you really want a partner of one year to handle your funeral affairs over family?

The bill intentions are understood and it's outrageous to think that people would have to even propose a bill for that reason, but if they want to play that game, they better play to win.

[saratoga]

why cant couples just designate each other as their power of attorney and take out all of the committed relationship crap. The problem with much of this legislation regarding gay marriage is that it is trying to enact well gay marriage. That may sound idiotic, but it would be more practical and sensible to frame all of this legislation as contract law. Saying you have to be in a committed relationship and all that, is only legislating the private lives of individuals further.

[Trent]

To Rich: Heterosexual couples have the right to get married. Gays don't. And yes, I would prefer my partner (of five years) to handle my affairs. My family disassociated themselves with me when I came out. It happens a lot. That's why laws like this are needed.

[JJF]

Better still, take the government & the law out of marriage, make anything that is relating to the legal status of partners, be they hetero- or homosexual, and make the government aspect civil union. Then allow churches to decide what is and isn't marriage. Then, there's equality for all in law rather than for some who are covered by laws tied to archaic religious practices and beliefs.

[rox0r]

This from the state that allows 16 year old girls to work at strip clubs and to legally turn tricks as long as they are solicited in a private location?

He's worried about funeral arrangements for the DEAD?? What does that even have to do with marriage?

[Jendra Jarnagin]

Ironic, since the mayor of Providence is the first openly gay mayor of a U.S. state capital.

[ryan tucker]

its 2009, he needs to quit living in the fucking dark ages.

[Kevin]

WHAT A DISGUSTING AND VILE PIECE OF TRASH. I HOPE HIS FAMILY IS 100% PROUD OF HIM AS A FATHER AND PROVIDER.

[Charles]

What a stupid fight to pick. You gays are ridiculous, and the novelty is wearing off.

[Super Dude]

for the record, prostitution in Rhode Island had been legal "indoors" (no street solicitation, mainly just massage palors) for awhile now, not because of the Mayor. Any way, it was made illegal about a week ago. Look it up for more info.

[Mingus]

May all his children turn out to be gay.

[John]

this is why gays need marrital right on the federal level...

f'ing heterosexuals..

[Zachary Stillwell]

It just doesn't make sense. What do the rights of people to be buried alongside each other, if they so choose, have to do with marriage. And for that matter why aren't Christians fighting with the right for Jews or Muslims to be legally married. If letting GLBT is a slight on the institution of marriage, which they see as a god given right, then anyone outside the Christian faith, or abusing its "laws," should be barred as well. At least logically. It just proves that they haven't really thought about it. It isn't a marriage thing, its a protecting their children thing. "If we let them get married, we're saying its ok. If we say its ok, who's to stop our kids from doing it." Absolutely disgusting.

[Bill]

Charles, the gay population is looking to be treated equally and fairly, it doesn't matter what the issue is no race, gender, or sexuality should be treated unfairly regardless the situation. The ignorance of people like you is really pathetic this day and age.

[Elizabeth]

The law makes it harder for gay couples to have a relationship where one partner is financially dependent on the other, such as a traditional housewife as the less skilled partner has no assurance of being taken care of in the case of sudden death or disability. Granted we are going away from the model of one breadwinner but a lot of people still have ineqaulities in earning power, and so one partner is likely to be supporting the other to some extent.

In the case of denying joint medical care it could cost the state more money if a gay person gets sick and isn't counted as a household. You want someone's loved ones to foot the bill for care so they don't end up on welfare, as we have enough societal dependents as it is without creating new classes of impoverished people. (Of course the cynic in me says it can be awfully good for the health insurance company which doesn't have to cover the bill. Single people pay relatively higher premiums than families.)

[Brad]

Sigh. I am glad I love in Canada because we don't have to deal with the bullshit.

I really hope the main stream media picks up on this.

[Phil]

This is the kind of shit that makes me 1. mad as fucking hell and 2. ashamed to be heterosexual.

[John Woods]

Now this dude seems like a pretty cool guy!

RT
www.anon-tools.mirrorz.com

[G Rivera]

Another example of The State infringing upon the personal liberties of a free people. Stop the madness people!!! Vote no on any expansion of The State's power.

[Tracy]

"one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals..."

He's kidding, right? So in that case a "traditionally" married spouse should have no right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse through their 1st year of marriage.

Funny, I can become pregnant and have a child within a year. How's that for a serious bond - oh wait I can't have a bond, it's only been 9 months, not a year!