Dirty Queers Do Not Have The Right To Bury Their Partners

[Yolk]

Saying it was a "disturbing erosion" of the "principles surrounding traditional marriage," today Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri vetoed a bill that would allow same-sex couples to make burial decisions about each other. Carcieri added that if the legislature didn't like that, he would welcome a statewide ballot vote on how to bury queers. (I'm paraphrasing.)

The bill, also sponsored by state Sen. Rhoda Perry and state Rep. David Segal, would add "domestic partners'' to the list, in current law, of people who can legally make arrangements for a deceased person's funeral, cremation or burial to include domestic partners if the deceased person left no pre-arranged funeral contract. 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.

Carcieri said the one-year period of cohabitation required by the burial law was insufficient to override what may be the contrary burial wishes of the biological family of the deceased. Meanwhile, heterosexual couples that have known each other for ten minutes will instantly gain that right upon marriage.

That's lovely! Homophobia at its best.

The state Senate and Assembly passed the bill with an overwhelming majority, so it looks like an override is inevitable, but it's still disgusting to hear someone would be opposed to it.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/11...rs-do-not.html

Sometimes I can't help but dance.

[Neverender]

Why is it always a Republican?!

It's like that one senator who kept going on about how he doesn't want them "shovin' it down mah throat!" or "in mah son's face!"

Old man doesn't even know how funny his statements are. The next Larry Craig, I'm sure.

[Stewie]

I think that the bill was well-intentioned, and I do not doubt that opposition to gay rights, or at the very least the Republicans' general paranoia about gay marriage, played a role in Carcieri's veto. That was made especially clear in his veto message which stated the bill represented 'a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage'. (Source) That being said, I would have my own concerns about the bill if I were a Rhode Islander. Namely, how do we know what is and what isn't an 'exclusive, intimate and committed relationship'? If one of the partners is dead, how the hell are we supposed to know? It also seems worrisome to me that someone's live-in boyfriend or girlfriend could claim burial rights over the deceased's family simply on the basis that they've lived together for a year. How is the state to determine when a relationship is 'exclusive, intimate and committed' enough for the surviving partner to be the rightful person to give that privilege to? I know plenty of people who live with their boyfriend or girlfriend for more than a year as a matter of convenience more than anything else - if one of them dies, should the survivor be granted the rights traditionally given only to spouses? I don't think so. My problem with the bill is that it creates a new legal class of domestic partners on terms which are very difficult to define, and the people involved don't even need to declare their intentions of being in such a relationship - it occurs automatically after a year. Gays in Rhode Island should be able to legally register domestic partnerships. The legislature should be focussing its attention on that.

[andrew lucas]

ahaha a prime example of how society fails, we're people (im no queer myself) but i think gay marriage should be a part of democracy, the right to make your own decisions freely.. i don't even see why laws are worrying too much about other peoples love life in the first place.. in my opinion theres much greater problems

please correct me if the above doesn't sound 100% sane

[muumajii23]

Ugh... I hate Republicans... -_-'

[Kevin]

I'm not gonna mince words, stereotyping against Republicans is idiotic. How can you expect to not get stereotyped against or discriminated against if you don't practice what you preach? These kind of blanket statements like all Republicans are essentially Satan make me laugh whenever I read a thread complaining about failure to obtain equal rights.

Talk the talk all you want, but walk the walk too.

[Neverender]

I'm not gonna mince words, stereotyping against Republicans is idiotic. How can you expect to not get stereotyped against or discriminated against if you don't practice what you preach? These kind of blanket statements like all Republicans are essentially Satan make me laugh whenever I read a thread complaining about failure to obtain equal rights.

Talk the talk all you want, but walk the walk too.

I can name Republicans who would be against this if the fuel is homophobia or paranoia about gay rights, like Ron Paul, Rand Paul (well he's about to win his seat) etc. You really have to judge each one on their own, and it makes me wonder why I keep hearing these things from Republican politicians. Is it just more publicized? Who knows, but the incidence seems high and that is somewhat puzzling.

[joshskates]

Republicans are closed minded and base everything off religion.
Democrats are liberal and try to change the world and legalize everything.
Green party loves nature, animals, Peta, and Ralph Nader (sarcastic tone)

Where is the Happy Medium?


of course I don't actually think anything I said above is true and I am against stereotyping people based on their affiliation to what have you, but just though i'd make a nonsense post. because politics are a vicious never ending circle and no matter what is done or said similar issues will continue to arise back and forth, get passed and repealed and so on. look at prop 8 in California, even thought it was passed, we all know its only a matter of time before its put back on the ballot.

As far as the article, this right is not not one that matters to me in particular. As far as I'm concerned, When I'm gone. I want to be burred face down so the rest of the world can kiss my ass

[Zomm]

Democrats? Republicans? Nonsense, they're all politicians to me.

[Neverender]

Democrats and Republicans are Coke and Pepsi. People think there's a bigger difference between them than there really is, I suspect.

[muumajii23]

I'm sorry, it's just whenever I hear something along these lines, it's always a Republican pushing it.

[AAASAS]

Though related to gays, this is not related to all gays, I'm sick of seeing all these American political gay threads, I guess they have the right to be there, but its kind of egocentric.

[Kevin]

Feel free to post more gay threads from other countries. We can't discourage activity.

[Dionysus]

I can name Republicans who would be against this if the fuel is homophobia or paranoia about gay rights, like Ron Paul, Rand Paul (well he's about to win his seat) etc. You really have to judge each one on their own, and it makes me wonder why I keep hearing these things from Republican politicians. Is it just more publicized? Who knows, but the incidence seems high and that is somewhat puzzling.

Generally speaking, republicans are more inclined to be intolerant of gay rights, as they're much more conservative and traditional. But just because something has a higher incidence rate amongst republicans, don't tar them all with the same brush. Gays have a higher incidence rate of HIV, but we don't say all gays have HIV.

[Faggot.]

Party A and Party B are Coke and Pepsi. People think there's a bigger difference between them than there really is, I suspect.

That's called a two-party system.

I'm sorry, it's just whenever I hear something along these lines, it's always a Republican pushing it.

That's because we have liberal run media.