Earlier this month in Rhode Island, a bill was put in front of Governor Donald Carcieri. The bill was designed to add "domestic partners" to the list of people authorized by law to make funeral arrangements if the deceased person left no pre-arranged funeral contract.
Governor Carcieri vetoed the bill.
Of course, his reasoning is bullshit. Two heterosexuals can meet and two months later get married. Then one month later, the husband can die. Apparently, Carcieri has no problem with a wife who knew her husband for a grand total of three months to make decisions pertaining to "sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains."
The truth is more in line with what he said earlier: he worries about the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage. It has nothing at all to do with how long a couple has or hasn't been together. He just doesn't want those damn queers making decisions for each other.
In his reasoning, Carcieri claimed that the people should decide by a vote. But he doesn't always want the people to vote.
Something else he vetoed that same day was a bill that would require a special election be held when a U.S. senator dies or leaves office in mid-term. Currently, the governor has the power to appoint an replacement senator. And he continues to wield that power now that he has vetoed a bill that would have put that decision in the hands of the people.
Carcieri doesn't care about giving the people a voice. He cares about putting forth his own right wing agenda.
A month earlier in October, Carcieri was the keynote speaker at a banquet for the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI). What does the MFI believe?
That banquet? It was a fundraising banquet. Carcieri was helping raise money for an institute that claims homosexuality is destructive to individuals.
Now...do you honestly believe he vetoed that bill because he feared "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals" or is it far more likely it was to do with his concern about "the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage"?
The bill was sponsored in the House by Rep. David Segal and in the Senate by Sen. Rhoda Perry. The bill also had a face: Mark S. Goldberg.
17 years. Goldberg and his partner were together for 17 years. And Carcieri doesn't believe that Goldberg should be able to make arrangements for his partner. Because Carcieri defends "traditional marriage" (or "opposite marriage" if you are a Miss USA contestant).
Rep. Segal is telling the truth. This bill wouldn't have even remotely changed the definition of marriage. But Carcieri and his ilk worry about some phantom "incremental erosion" of all they hold dear and as such will do anything to disenfranchise anyone who they oppose.
Governor Carcieri vetoed the bill.
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.
"If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide."...
...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...[relative to] sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains."
Of course, his reasoning is bullshit. Two heterosexuals can meet and two months later get married. Then one month later, the husband can die. Apparently, Carcieri has no problem with a wife who knew her husband for a grand total of three months to make decisions pertaining to "sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains."
The truth is more in line with what he said earlier: he worries about the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage. It has nothing at all to do with how long a couple has or hasn't been together. He just doesn't want those damn queers making decisions for each other.
In his reasoning, Carcieri claimed that the people should decide by a vote. But he doesn't always want the people to vote.
Something else he vetoed that same day was a bill that would require a special election be held when a U.S. senator dies or leaves office in mid-term. Currently, the governor has the power to appoint an replacement senator. And he continues to wield that power now that he has vetoed a bill that would have put that decision in the hands of the people.
Carcieri doesn't care about giving the people a voice. He cares about putting forth his own right wing agenda.
A month earlier in October, Carcieri was the keynote speaker at a banquet for the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI). What does the MFI believe?
MFI does not consider homosexual behavior to be merely an alternate lifestyle or sexual "preference"; it is an unhealthy practice and destructive to individuals, families and society. Our compassion for those plagued by same-sex attraction compels us to support the healing of those who wish to change their behavior. MFI strongly opposes any efforts by political activists to normalize homosexual behavior and all attempts to equate homosexuality with benign characteristics such as skin color, or the "gay rights" movement with the civil rights movement.
That banquet? It was a fundraising banquet. Carcieri was helping raise money for an institute that claims homosexuality is destructive to individuals.
Now...do you honestly believe he vetoed that bill because he feared "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals" or is it far more likely it was to do with his concern about "the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage"?
The bill was sponsored in the House by Rep. David Segal and in the Senate by Sen. Rhoda Perry. The bill also had a face: Mark S. Goldberg.
...the legislation was an outgrowth of the wrenching tale that Mark S. Goldberg told lawmakers about his months-long battle last fall to persuade state authorities to release to him the body of his partner of 17 years, Ron Hanby, for cremation.
"I felt as if I was treated not as a second-class citizen, but as a noncitizen,” Goldberg told the Senate Judiciary Committee last winter, because “we were not legally married or blood relatives."
17 years. Goldberg and his partner were together for 17 years. And Carcieri doesn't believe that Goldberg should be able to make arrangements for his partner. Because Carcieri defends "traditional marriage" (or "opposite marriage" if you are a Miss USA contestant).
Describing himself as “genuinely upset” by Carcieri’s actions, the House sponsor, Rep. David Segal, D-Providence, said: “I think the man is heartless … [this] doesn’t change the definition of the word ‘marriage.’”
Rep. Segal is telling the truth. This bill wouldn't have even remotely changed the definition of marriage. But Carcieri and his ilk worry about some phantom "incremental erosion" of all they hold dear and as such will do anything to disenfranchise anyone who they oppose.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Please read out comment policy before posting a comment.