Keeping Corpses Straight: Rhode Island Governor Bars Same Sex Couples From Joint Funeral Arrangements

125px-Flag_of_Rhode_Island.svgportraitIt appears that opponents of same-sex marriage cannot even tolerate the thought of gay couples being buried together. Rhode Island Governor Donald L. Carcieri (R) has vetoed a bill that would have added “domestic partners” to the list of people authorized by law to make joint funeral arrangements. He feels that idea of joint burials smacks too much of a marriage.

What is particularly arbitrary is the fact that these couples can presumably make such arrangements for themselves in life and be buried in the same plot. The governor simply does not want them making arraignments for each other if one is suddenly killed without such preparations.

In his veto statement, Carcieri stated “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.” Here is the full statement: veto_s0195_funeral_directors

Under the legislation, a domestic partner can make funeral arrangement if they can show “exclusive, intimate and committed relationship” with the deceased and had lived with him or her for at least a year prior to the death.

Carcieri noted that not only does such a power suggest something close to a traditional marriage but such a “partner” could take precedence over “traditional family member.” He also wants to see more of a commitment than a year –despite the fact that a day is sufficient for a heterosexual couple.

With his veto, the governor reaffirms that in Rhode Island they prefer their corpses straight and segregated.

For the full story, click here.

31 thoughts on “Keeping Corpses Straight: Rhode Island Governor Bars Same Sex Couples From Joint Funeral Arrangements”

  1. Byron: I knew people wouldn’t get my “underground sex” joke- but I couldn’t resist.
    Anyway here’s your WHOOSH!

  2. Perhaps there is something else GOD doesn’t want:

    “have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won’t ever need such a pill. And anyway, it’s no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections…I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn’t want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.”

    Digby on Alternet

  3. FFLEO,

    On a purely philosophical level I may agree with you (no gov. in marriage), it’s the application that gets things get tangled up. We’d basically have to restructure our entire society in ways that counteract a large chunk of human evolution. We are after all a social species that organizes itself based largely on genetic ties, and evidence indicates that we probably have been since before we were human.

    We’re hard-wired to certain social arrangements, the smart thing is for the government to recognize that and act accordingly, which is (with the current inexcusable exception) what our current legal system does.

  4. The governor is clearly concerned for the safety of gays and lesbians, as well as the rest of us. Underground sex in the gay community has resulted in devastating consequences for public health.

  5. To Gary Welsh, we have discussed this issue extensively on other threads. The very latest is:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/

    Other discussions can be found by putting terms like “natural born citizen” and “Orly Taitz” and “Donofrio” and “Retired General” in the Search window in the upper right hand corner of blog.

    Thank you for the link to the case. The Indiana Court of Appeals is right on the money. The case is Ankeny and Kruse v. Governor of Indiana, in the Court of Appeals of Indiana:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Tho pro se plaintiffs sued the Governor for failing to block the Electoral Votes for Obama. The trial court dismissed the claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court discussed the merits of the claim that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two United States citizens. It rejected the claim outright.

    It correctly relied on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, ruling that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens.

    I will post this under the latest Taitz thread so that the discussion can be continued there.

  6. Well Gyges, I never said it would be easy…

    You are deriving some interesting legal issues, though.

  7. FFLEO,

    I forgot our immigration policy. That’s a biggie. We’d have to change that one to get government out of recognizing marriages.

    Oh, and you’d have to forget about having your family live on base with you if you’re in the military.

  8. Well I think the Bible already tells us what should be done. You stone the living partner and the problem is taken care of.

  9. FFLEO,

    In order to do that we’d have to stop letting family get advantages that non-family doesn’t get to. Think hospitals.

  10. GWLawSchoolMom,

    The only reasonable solution is from Professor T:
    _________________________________

    Quote:

    “Personally, while I support recognizing marriage for gay couples as an alternative, I remain convinced that the best approach is for all couples to register civil unions with the states and leave the term “marriage” to individual religions to define, here.”

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/04/maine-voters-repeal-law-allowing-gays-to-marry/
    _________________________________

    I want the government out of the marriage business; forever and for always ’til death do *couples* part.

    *of any style plumbing or sexual inclinations*

  11. AY writes: I say bury them face down, so they can just kiss my ass good bye.

    don’t you mean this gives you the opportunity to kiss their asses goodbye?

  12. leo writes: As the regular here most likely to take 1st place as the strongest opponent of gay marriage, this is a contemptible display of insensitivity

    okay. you are generally a reasonable guy, so here are my questions….
    how does gay marriage affect you personally? would you eve know if a couple was married and if that marriage holds the same meaning for them as yours does for you?

    if you had a gay child who wanted to marry his/her partner would you not want their happiness?

  13. the bill passed by a vote of 63 to 1 by the representative of the good people of the state of rhode island and providence plantations.

    the governor’s veto says nothing other than he’s going to be out of a job come next year.

  14. Since homophobia is NOT founded in any logic, reasoning or good judgement, there is no way to contain the illogical, outrageous, hurtful and downright stupid thoughts and actions of those who choose to be afflicted with it.

    Homesexuality ISN’T a choice, homophobia IS.

  15. Now I understand the interest of the state in regulating burials, public health and all that. But what reason could they possibly have for legislating who a person can put in charge of their funeral arrangements?

  16. As the regular here most likely to take 1st place as the strongest opponent of gay marriage, this is a contemptible display of insensitivity.

Comments are closed.