Gay Rights | News | Rhode Island

BigGayDeal.com

Rhode Island Governor Won't Even Give Rights to Dead Gays

If you're gay and you die in Rhode Island your domestic partner won't be able to make funeral arrangements for you because Governor Donald Carcieri just vetoed a bill providing for that.

Carcieri Why?

According to Carcieri, "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, who is also a strong supporter of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), recently told the crowd of more than 300 at a fundraiser for the anti-gay group Massachusetts Family Institute that marriage is "not a civil right". Said the governor: "It is a not civil right. I get aggravated when it is portrayed that way. Marriage is a license by the state. It is about a state’s responsibility, which is the reason why states don’t allow a lot of types of marriages."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Dude doesn't understand the concept of representative democracy. Or maybe he does and he's just playing dumb. Either way....

    Posted by: PistolPetey | Nov 10, 2009 6:41:24 PM


  2. If Civil Rights were left up to the popular vote, it would not have passed.

    Posted by: J.P. | Nov 10, 2009 6:51:19 PM


  3. The people of RI need to give this bozo his pink slip.

    Posted by: GM | Nov 10, 2009 7:00:19 PM


  4. He should read the CA Supreme Court decision re: marriage being a civil right. That eloquent decision would beg to differ. There is no justifiable reason to exclude gay couples from civil marriage, much less some watered down partnership system. But bigots say it's not a civil right because they say it's not a civil right.

    It's also not clear which "principles" he is referring to and how including gay couples in marriage would erode them. Or even what "traditional" marriage is since marriage has changed remarkably over time, long before gay couples became a part of it.

    RI could do so much better than this idiot.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 10, 2009 7:02:10 PM


  5. With all due respect, or perhaps with none, does he have even a passing relationship with the US Constitution or the cases interpreting it?

    In Griswold v. Connecticut, 44 years ago the Supreme Court said that the status of being in a state-created marriage alone creates certain rights under the constitution. While that case was specifically dealing with the right to privacy and contraception, the fact that being in a marriage creates constitutional rights means that the State can't arbitrarily withhold access to those rights absent a legitimate state interest. There is no legitimate state interest served in keeping lesbians and gays from marrying same sex partners.

    One would hope that the chief state officer charged with enforcing the Constitution within his jurisdiction would have some idea what the document does and is.

    Douche!
    Bless his heart.

    Posted by: notshychirev | Nov 10, 2009 7:09:31 PM


  6. PURE

    UNADULTERATED

    EVIL!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 10, 2009 7:16:58 PM


  7. Will somebody get a large bullhorn and let that braying ass repeat his comments to his fundamentalist supporters who claim marriage is a religious institution. If it's a state's responsibility then he can tell his friends in the church to shutup. The constitution is very plain on that separation.

    Posted by: i e woodward | Nov 10, 2009 7:27:30 PM


  8. If marriage is not a civil right, but simply a "license by the state", why then does the Governor say it should be placed on a ballot for the people to decide? Since when do states put "licensing issues" up for popular vote? I can't help but think that the Governor's logic only works to the GLBT communities advantage. We only need to argue that licensing regulations are not subject to popular vote.

    Posted by: Brian C | Nov 10, 2009 7:38:54 PM


  9. And states should only marry a man and a woman because...?

    Posted by: Latebrosus | Nov 10, 2009 7:46:53 PM


  10. Wow, and usually his type only likes dead gays, so you'd think he might want to do something for them. On the upside the comments in the linked article all call this idiot out for his blatant hatred.

    Posted by: KK Bloom | Nov 10, 2009 8:26:32 PM


  11. From J.P
    If Civil Rights were left up to the popular vote, it would not have passed.
    Posted by: J.P. | Nov 10, 2009 6:51:19 PM

    UMMMM Miss J.P Stop being a caucasian apologist...Civil Rights???????

    WHAT THE FUCK????

    Carcieri is hardly a minority sweetie pie.

    He is simply ANOTHER WHITE HOMOPHOBE Call it what it is.
    So you bringing up about a vote for Civil Rights is stupid at best girl.
    Please get on somewhere because this isn't the next episode of "The Blacks are trying to take my rights away"

    SORRY GIRL.....IT'S ANOTHER WHITE HOMOPHOBE!

    PERIOD!

    Posted by: Crunk | Nov 10, 2009 8:37:13 PM


  12. He is about power and money.
    He is a straight supremist.
    Being a straight supremist gain
    his party peasant support and Christianist
    support in a state literally full of Christian Peasants.

    No surprise.
    He is just a common evil man.
    They will exist until we die.

    Now if RI had it's act together and elected a Demorcrat as GOV this would not have happened.

    Posted by: RJP3 | Nov 10, 2009 8:41:01 PM


  13. Hey bigotted fuck, the Supreme Court of the U.S. has held that it is a civil right in Loving v. Virginia.

    "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

    Posted by: Lucifer | Nov 10, 2009 9:49:24 PM


  14. Gov. Carcinogen is correct, marriage is not a civil right; -it is a human right. Only a human would understand.

    Posted by: Gary | Nov 10, 2009 9:50:12 PM


  15. Why not give fucknut a piece of your mind?

    http://www.governor.ri.gov/contact/#

    Posted by: Brad | Nov 10, 2009 10:28:09 PM


  16. He's a douchebag, pure and simple. And I speak as someone who's lived in Rhode Island since 2000!

    I hope that heterosexual people take note of his statement that a year isn't enough time for people to form a lasting bond -- that should, by definition, include them!

    Posted by: John S. Hall | Nov 10, 2009 10:34:58 PM


  17. I wonder what it would be like to have access to all the rights that hetero couples have. I guess at that point, the U.S. would be a civil place to live.

    Posted by: johnny | Nov 10, 2009 10:35:45 PM


  18. How did this cruel man ever get elected? Boot him from office.

    Posted by: KFLO | Nov 10, 2009 10:50:01 PM


  19. What the governor seems to avoid mentioning is that the only compelling state interest in regulating the methods in which the dead can be disposed of is in the interest of PUBLIC HEALTH - otherwise, the state has no legitimate interest in regulating those arrangements at all. In his hungry little power grab to assert state hegemony into the lives of the "unlicensed" residents of his state, the governor has failed to represent the interests of all the people and to uphold the state constitution. Someone with some guts in that state assembly should introduce an article of impeachment against the clown.
    There is no justification for claiming that a marriage license alone is some requirement for stealing the constitutional rights of single people to make their own wishes upon their deaths. The governor's action here is more than heinous - it is a disgusting, degrading, horrific example of one man's promotion of tyranny against ALL the people of his state.

    Posted by: kevinbgoode | Nov 10, 2009 10:50:27 PM


  20. Will he go after Jews and Blacks too? You know he wants to...

    Posted by: alan brickman | Nov 10, 2009 11:03:01 PM


  21. This is quite possibly the most offensive thing I have EVER seen a governor do. Why ANYONE would vote for this vile hate-filled homophobe is beyond me.

    Posted by: David in Houston | Nov 10, 2009 11:44:54 PM


  22. Governor Carcieri's days are numbered - he is barred from reelection in 2010 due to term limits. He is unpopular in the state - as he has stepped on many toes while in office. But the Dems will take it back in a year - and Rhode Island will catch up with the rest of New England.

    As a Rhode Islander and Providence native, I would like to hear more from Mayor David Cicilline - our openly gay italian-jewish mayor, regarding these issues. He's made the occasional comment, but c'mon David, these are OUR issues! Take a lesson from former Mayor Buddy Cianci...if he were gay - he would have put a cigarette out in Gov. Don Carcieri's eye by now!

    Posted by: Matty | Nov 11, 2009 12:07:21 AM


  23. This guy's a total shitbag and hopefully, its veto will be overridden. And yet, this scumbag was elected by the people of rhode island.

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 11, 2009 12:26:59 AM


  24. Why is this motherfucker still moving air?

    Posted by: haddie weinreb | Nov 11, 2009 2:07:03 AM


  25. What an asshat.

    Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Nov 11, 2009 3:39:36 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «MUSIC NEWS: Robbie Williams, Tori Amos, Melanie Fiona, Susan Boyle, Britney Spears, Hot Chip, Bad Lieutenant, Miike Snow, Green Day« «