R.I. Gov. Vetoes Same-Sex Funeral Rights

(AP)  Gov. Don Carcieri vetoed legislation Tuesday that would give same-sex couples in Rhode Island the same right to plan the funerals of their late partners as married couples.

The socially conservative Republican said the proposed protection represents a "disturbing trend" of the incremental erosion of heterosexual marriage. Rhode Island does not recognize same-sex marriage.

"If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the State of Rhode Island decide," Carcieri said in a letter to lawmakers.

Democrats hold a veto-proof majority in the Legislature and frequently override Carcieri's objections.

Sen. Rhoda Perry and Rep. David Segal, the bill sponsors, said they would seek to override the veto. They proposed the legislation after one of their constituents was unable to retrieve the body of his late partner from the state medical examiner for weeks because they weren't married or next-of-kin.

Gay rights supporters were indignant at the veto.

"It is absolutely unconscionable that Gov. Carcieri would step in the middle of people being able to take care of their loved ones at such a sorrowful time," said Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, which advocates for gay marriage. "Why would he make it more difficult? I just don't get it."

The proposed funeral planning rights would apply to same-sex couples who have had a relationship for at least one year and pass other tests, such as owning property together. Carcieri said some of the guidelines were vague.

[ualflyer76]

So as a Rhode Islander, I have two things to say...First of all, who is that useless man to tell anyone who is eroding the whole marriage thing? He who has done nothing but run this state into the ground financially. What I find absolutely amazing about all of these politicians is the fact that here in the US, it is supposedly separation of Church and State for all these politicians when it is convenient, but when it comes to gay issues, they always make sure to bring religion into it. I think it is just that they have nothing better to do because there are people who know their own lives are not good so they have to belittle whoever they think they can..As far as the governor is concerned, get out of that office....The saddest day in RI history is when you came in and the best is when you and all your trashy cronies will leave...

[bluelyric7]

If anyone wants to tell this guy what a detestable waste of flesh he is: http://www.governor.ri.gov/webform/inquirytest.php

[usnjake]

What a narrow-minded load of crap. You Rhode Islandians need to vote his fat a** out of office! I hope R.I.'s state legislators over-ride his veto.

I just don't get it! How do gay marriages/rights erode traditional marriages/rights? Show me proof, not mindless platitudes meant to placate the masses who all too often follow leaders without a question.

[Texas_Aggie]

I thought this guy was in jail for corruption. What happened?

[binturong]

The only way possible to "erode heterosexual marriage" would be by not allowing heterosexuals to marry. Recognizing same-sex couple's right to marry does not in any sense (other than stupidity, discrimination or paranoia) infringe on other people's rights, or threaten those heterosexual unions. Let's unpack this baggage once and for all: the institution of marriage does not need "defending", unless someone is planning on doing away with it- not so in this case.

[mmeflutterbye]

That governor looked like such a nice man! And then he implies that he loses sleep over the erosion of heterosexual marriage! How does that work? I am heterosexual and married, and I'll be darned if I have noticed the erosion of my marriage because gay people want the rights that I have. What kind of evil constituency does this guy have that refuses rights to others?

[mlfrdjew]

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

I find it amazing that over 200 years ago this was said, yet is a new concept today. Why is it so hard to understand that EVERYONE deserves the same rights and protections under the law. The will of the majority should always rule, but lets face it, THE MAJORITY CAN BE WRONG. I have a hard time understanding how bigotry can be accepted so easily. Yes I said bigotry which for those of you who don't know what that means (Bigotry derivative of Bigot. Bigot is defined as a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.) I accept that people may not agree with gay marriage or interracial marriage or anything else for that matter. I tolerate and accept their opinion. I just hope one day people can see how wrong it is to let the will of the majority limit the rights of the minority. PLEASE LOOK OUTSIDE YOUR SELF AND HAVE SOME EMPATHY FOR THE PAIN THAT THESE PEOPLE FEEL.

[greenmanTN]

Exactly. I'm always baffled by people who, in response to a 52% or 53% rejection of gay rights (as in CA and ME), announce "the people have spoken!" Oh, really? We VOTE on who gets rights in this country? What do you think would have happened in the 1950s and 60s if a popular vote had been allowed to define the rights of African-Americans? Or what if we had "let the states decide" then? What patchwork MESS would civil rights be now? Does winning a popular vote that limits the rights of others make it "right?" With a TV commercial ad campaign focused on their differences from the "mainstream" you could probably get a majority of people to vote against the practice of some ethnic groups or religions, Mormonism, Judaism, even Catholicism, or Islam, in certain states. Would that make it right? It's only the Constitution that keeps that from happening. Majority tyranny is not a road we want to go down and it's why the US is NOT a direct democracy but a representative republic. Those who think these "popular vote" limitations of rights are fine should take a look at your own lives. Shall we put your relationship to a vote, your divorces, your daily lives, the lessons you teach your children? What if I or someone else doesn't like it? Shall we see who can convince the most people to agree and rule your life?

[greenmanTN]

Those you who are claiming to see no problem with this are either being deliberately obtuse or flat-out lying to fit your political/religious agenda.

It's issues like these that are the driving force behind the push for same-sex marriage, because the respect for your position in another person's life as their spouse is withheld in the case of gay couples even though they may have been together for decades. All the rights and considerations that are freely given to straight spouses for the minor cost of a marriage license can only be obtained by gay couples through multiple legal contracts costing hundreds of dollars each and even then, if all the conceivable loopholes aren't addressed, a partner's family, even distant family, can step in and take control, loot the estate and forbid even attendance at the funeral for their long-term partner.

There was a particular case a few years back, in Wyoming I think but it could have been elsewhere, about a gay male couple who had been together for decades and had even raised the son one of them had from a previous relationship. When one partner died the other produced his will, which left everything to the surviving partner, but instead of the will being witnessed by 3 people, only 2 had signed. Mind you there was no doubt what the deceased partner had intended to do with his estate since he had directed a lawyer to draw up the will, but because there was one too few witnesses the deceased man's cousins (second cousins, I believe) were able to claim the estate and the property and evict the man's partner of decades. THAT is the sort of thing the RI Gov tacitly approved with his veto. You can call it Conservatism, Religious Principle, or whatever polite euphemism you like, but it is nothing less than blatant prejudice & unfairness cloaked as piety and if there is a God I'd think you'd have to answer for it some day.

It's also quite similar to the lesbian woman who wasn't allowed to see her partner after she collapsed in Florida and later died. This was a couple who had done ALL the "right" things. They had wills, owned property with both their names on it, had medical proxies, etc. and had even adopted children together. But according to the hospital they were just friends and only "real" family could see the patient. It was only after they discovered that the dying woman had donated her organs and her lesbian partner with the medical proxy was required to sign for the organs to be 'harvested' that they showed the grieving partner any consideration at all. She's a better person than I because, in the heat of the moment, I might have refused the request and let those who benefited from those organs suffer as a consequence of the bigoted and hateful response from the hospital.

So, as you smugly congratulate yourself on your self-righteous piety for following the dictates of your religion in regard to gays even while you ignore the other Biblical dictates and attitudes toward women's rights, divorce, slavery, shellfish consumption, etc. etc. etc., despite the fact there is no known human civilization where homosexuality didn't exist, remember that your prejudices have consequences. The advance of civilization is on the side of the outcast and you may find yourself, as Gov George Wallace later did, regretting your hateful attitudes and behavior in times when acceptance and generosity could have been your choice instead.

[jennifer-marie]

[From the article] "The socially conservative Republican said the proposed protection represents a "disturbing trend" of the incremental erosion of heterosexual marriage. Rhode Island does not recognize same-sex marriage."

----- Except, this bill wasn't about same-sex marriage - it was about one person being able to claim the body of a loved one who has passed and plan a funeral for them. I understand there are many people who are against same-sex marriage, but how could anyone be in support of denying one person the right to bury a long time loved one? Unmarried heterosexual couples who have been together for a certain period of time, live together, or own property together are afforded more rights than same-sex couples -- which I don't understand.

Just because a man has sex with another man does not make him less of a human being or more undeserving of certain rights and privileges than a man who has sex with women.

If the Governer vetoed this bill because he truly felt it was bad legislation and needed to be rewritten with more clear guidelines, then why did he say ANYTHING at all about same-sex marriage? It is perfectly clear that he vetoed this bill because he is against same-sex marriage.

[endurorob_5]

democracy1 November 11, 2009 8:48 AM EST
by endurorob_5 November 11, 2009 8:07 AM EST
Are you serious?!!! No one has the right to say to someone else that they cannot deal with the funeral rights of their loved ones! Talk about the state taking over! You'd be the 1st in line to scream if the state did this to you, but I guess you're ok with the state doing that to people you don't like.



There are rules and regulations required to be followed in the claiming of a deceased body. Those rules should not be changed based on sexual oreintation. Why are you so angry with me? Why are you so apposed to the people in a democracy making a decision rather than the special interest group serving politicians?