Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It seems like such a simple act of compassion - allowing the partners of committed same-sex couples to make funeral arrangements for their significant others. But according to Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island, bestowing this small but vital legal right to gays and lesbians will somehow "degrade" traditional marriage. From the Providence Journal: An opponent of same-sex marriage, Governor Carcieri has vetoed bill that would have added "domestic partners'' to the list of people authorized by law to make funeral arrangements for each other. 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
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... (That sounds reasonable to me - and it's precisely how many corporations set the standard for offering DP benefits.) 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..."
Where's Buddy Cianci when you really need him?
That is weird. I didn't know that only certain people were allowed to make funeral arrangements for the deceased. So, let me see, if John Gay dies without family to see to his funeral arrangements and only has his gay lover, then John has to be buried in a paupers grave?
How utterly ridiculous!
I suppose that if John had parents who wanted him buried in X location and the gay lover wanted him buried elsewhere there could be an issue as to who has precedence, but this doesn't make sense.
Immie
The Progressive Puppy: Rhode Island Governor Vetoes Burial Rights For Gay Couples
It seems like such a simple act of compassion - allowing the partners of committed same-sex couples to make funeral arrangements for their significant others. But according to Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island, bestowing this small but vital legal right to gays and lesbians will somehow "degrade" traditional marriage. From the Providence Journal: An opponent of same-sex marriage, Governor Carcieri has vetoed bill that would have added "domestic partners'' to the list of people authorized by law to make funeral arrangements for each other. 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
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... (That sounds reasonable to me - and it's precisely how many corporations set the standard for offering DP benefits.) 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..."
While this is just sick, I'm not surprised. Especially considering the asshole who vetoed it.
why the government continues to meddle in social issues i will never know....
why the government continues to meddle in social issues i will never know....
Because they're assholes.
why the government continues to meddle in social issues i will never know....
Because they're assholes.
It is about damned time that you liberals began to figure that out!
Immie
Because they're assholes.
It is about damned time that you liberals began to figure that out!
Immie
WTF are you talking about?
Yes, the cons want government out of our lives, alright. LOL
WTF are you talking about?
It is about damned time that you liberals began to figure that out!
Immie
It is about damned time that you liberals began to figure that out!
Immie
I do hope you are joking.
Well, I was ribbing you but when you get right down to it, liberals think the bigger the government the better. That says to me, the more politicians the better.
So, yes, I was joking with you because you are capable of taking it.
But, don't tell me you don't agree that liberals worship politicians.
Immie
Well, I was ribbing you but when you get right down to it, liberals think the bigger the government the better. That says to me, the more politicians the better.
So, yes, I was joking with you because you are capable of taking it.
But, don't tell me you don't agree that liberals worship politicians.
Immie
I don't agree Liberals worship politicians. I agree that idiots do. I'm a Liberal that worships no politician though and for relatively small government.
when I made the post so that you would know it.
There are idiots on both sides. I think there are a lot of liberals (not all!) that literally worship the idea of big government and worship the politicians that promise it.
And I was teasing you. I am sorry, I had meant a
Immie
