Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri (R) has vetoed a bill that would have allowed domestic partners to provide for the burial of their loved ones, just as spouses and blood relatives are entitled to do under state law.
In a veto message, Carcieri said he rejected the bill because the one year minimum requirement for the domestic partnership is not enough to establish a “lasting bond.” There’s also no reliable way to prove the existence of the relationship since Rhode Island doesn’t recognize domestic partnerships as a general matter. Of course, Carcieri would also oppose creating such a status.
Finally, Carcieri vetoed the burial law to protect “traditional marriage” from “incremental erosion.”
The legislature passed the bill after hearing testimony from a man whose partner of 17 years went unburied for months while state officials rejected his requests to cremate the body as the dead man wished. State officials were unmoved by the couple’s wills, living wills, powers of attorney, and a marriage certificate from Connecticut.
Kaonashi says:
When’s he coming up for election? I’ve always thought as RI as a fairly liberal state so I’d bet that this will be remembered when his name comes up on the ballot. In the meantime it can always be overriden and maybe someone who knows about Rhode Island’s constitution can chime in on whether they have a chance on suing to force the state to treat gay partners equally when it comes to will and last wishes.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 10:25 pmRepublican Gay Bashing | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] Every once and a while I say the GOP needs to lay off the gay bashing. Usually someone demands to know what the GOP is doing against gays. This! [...]
inahandbasket says:
Professor Carpenter -
State officials would not recognize their legal documents!? Do you have a link to the testimony of the surviving spouse? What a miscarriage of justice. Just goes to show all of the anti-marriage equality crowd who keep saying that just having the legal documents (living wills, powers of attorney, etc.) is as good as a civil marriage is a LIE.
Good thing Carcieri is not running again for governor. News like this is ultimately good for marriage equality because it shows just how far these bigots in office will go to deny their citizens basic dignity and rights.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 10:37 pmbyomtov says:
Wow.
Any time you think Republicans can’t possibly be as big a bunch of assholes as you think, they prove you wrong.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 10:38 pmJesse G. says:
“State officials were unmoved by the couple’s wills, living wills, powers of attorney,
and a marriage certificate from Connecticut.”This is crazy. I am personally in support of gay marriage but leave out he marriage certificate part of things and this is still a horrible example of government not allowing people individual agency to structure their lives (and death) as they see fit. What if I wanted to designate in my will that I wanted to be cremated and decided to give my best friend power of attorney to make sure that would take place? Rhode Island would deny me that? Crazy and WRONG.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 10:42 pmStrict says:
Gay funerals erode the sanctity of traditional funerals.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 10:51 pmll says:
Isn’t that the actual problem here?
Quote
November 11, 2009, 10:54 pmCDU says:
So how do single people without any available blood relatives get buried in Rhode Island? This seems like a more general flaw with Rhode Island law, not just a gay issue.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 10:55 pmJerome says:
I have a sneaking suspicion that RI doesn’t have a policy of denying living wills, wills and powers of attorney all the time. Just homosexuals’ such legal instruments. So not only is it that gays don’t have equal marriage rights, but they don’t have equal access to the legal system, at least in this one case?
So the defense of marriage proponents show their true colors as bigots.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:14 pmEvilDave says:
Shhhhhh ... It is all gay issues, all the time.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:15 pmRandy says:
And those who are against gay marriage often say that we can get all the same rights if we just fill out all the right forms.
I guess it’s small consolation that RI traditionally has some of the most corrupt government in the country.
Il: “Isn’t that the actual problem here?”
I reckon so. Which is why the state legislature was moved to pass a bill to rectify the situation. But what about couples that didn’t get married in another state, or fill out all the necessary forms?
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:17 pmRandy says:
Evildave: “hhhhhh ... It is all gay issues, all the time.”
How annoying all this must be for you. For those who might actually care, here is the article that about the case. It also answers the question that EvilDave finds so annoying, which is what normally happens in these cases.
What the article doesn’t tell you, of course is that the surviving partner tried to get the Providence Journal to run an obituar, but they refused. Given that obits are paid advertisements, their action is rather baffling, considering the fact that they are hurting finacially. Guess it’s better to be bankrupt than to look like you are endorsing Satan, right?
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:38 pmPatHMV says:
For some reason, Rhode Island law is rather particular about who is allowed to make funeral arrangements for deceased individuals who don’t sign a contract with a funeral parlor before they die. You can be a “funeral planning agent” for one and only one non-relative. There’s a statutorily-required form and everything. It’s against the law for funeral directors to fail to comply with the requirements of that statute.
Why a general will and designation of power of attorney is insufficient to let any individual empower another to make funeral agents without following a statutorily-prescribed form is beyond me.
It’s a ridiculous law. They should just repeal that statute and let the individual dispose of their remains the same way they dispose of their property, through a will.
There’s surely got to be more to the story that led to the bill, though. I presume this general statute was enacted to provide some protection to funeral-home owners stuck in the middle of bickering survivors over what to do with the remains. That’s fine by itself, but it certainly shouldn’t be written so that the funeral home feels compelled to create a controversy and refuse to bury or cremate somebody when there’s no opposition to the person whom the deceased clearly wanted to make such decisions.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:39 pmAndy Bolen says:
To the extent this concern is legitimate, it seems like it’s the danger that courts will cite it as a reason to impose gay marriage. It’s unfortunate that people are afraid of democratic steps toward compromise on these issues because of the way courts have abused such compromises...
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:40 pmOrder of the Coif says:
Originally I didn’t support SSM but actions like this have, over the years, convinced me that opposition is wrong.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:43 pmMonty says:
Did the will actually instruct that he be cremated? Also, from a legal standpoint, how are the living wills and powers of attorney relevent? Even if the state was extremely bigoted... I can’t beleive they would ignore clear and unambigious instructions in the will that he be cremated... was there more to it?
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:46 pmPatHMV says:
Randy, I cross-posted with your comment linking to the story. Thanks for the additional detail. Ridiculous, idiotic bureaucrats.
Even George W. Bush is in favor of civil unions, Rhode Island! And for those who want to use this as an opportunity to Republican-bash, remember that President Obama is opposed to homosexual marriage, and has thus far refused to support ending DADT (apparently believing that homosexuals pose a greater risk to the military than fanatical Muslims who support violent jihad against infidels, whose religious motivations we must not question).
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:48 pmArthurKirkland says:
If you tolerate gay funerals, you foreclose that last chance to repent (from a coroner’s drawer), and damn the deceased to eternity with the small-minded likes of Gov. Carcieri.
I, too, opposed same-sex marriage . . . until I discovered it would not be mandatory. Some people, it appears, still have not gotten that message.
Quote
November 11, 2009, 11:52 pmSome dude says:
That is an unusual anecdote, but the same thing could have happened to anyone who died without a next-of-kin and with out filling out that one particular form. It isn’t a same sex marriage issue.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:12 amAnonymous says:
until I discovered it would not be mandatory
So businesses are allowed to, for example, offer discounts to married couples of men and women but not to other “married” groups? No, that would be discriminatory, and one’s own judgement must be sublimated to the will of the majority by the force of government.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:15 amzuch says:
Particularly when Fred Phelps decides to attend....
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:32 amPatHMV says:
From a purely political stand-point, as Order of the Coif’s comment demonstrates, this type of government mistreatment of people will hurt, not help, those opposed to gay marriage. If opponents of it are unwilling to compromise at all, even just to letting people decide for themselves (without anticipating your death and preparing just exactly the right form, etc.) who they want to let make decisions for them when they are unable to, well then there’s no reason for the proponents of gay marriage to compromise, either. Americans are a sympathetic lot, for the most part. When we see suffering and government-imposed injustice, we tend to react unfavorably. It’s easy to oppose gay marriage as an abstract matter, and clearly a majority of voters do, in most states. If there are other alternatives available (civil unions or domestic partnerships, or powers of attorney and wills) which are reasonably effective and available, then the urgency of change, and the perception of injustice, is minimized. But exert the power of the state to go out of the way to prevent such alternatives or make them less effective, and the public will be much faster to sympathize with the concrete and immediate harm being done, rather than the larger and more abstract principles at stake.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:38 amsubpatre says:
Oh for crying out loud! It’s not Rhode Island and it’s not gays; a lot of states take this attitude toward non-relatives.
The problem is failure to recognize valid contracts; POA, wills, living wills, etc. The problem is when states step in ‘to take care of folks’ in the thousands of instances where people fail to make end of life arrangements.
Have gone through this with relatives, where states and institutions failed or refused to recognize non-relative contract. I understand the frustration. I have lived through what Goldberg did; not once, but twice.
The solution is not to lard on more nannyism; it is to dismantle the existing laws that deny valid, voluntary contracts.
It is appalling that a libertarian-leaning site suggests “more laws” when a pile of overbearing, nitpicking rules —ones that still would have excluded POA— is the clear and obvious cause to begin with. The remedy is the opposite.
Governor Carcieri did himself no favors, but Dale Carpenter should hang his head in shame also.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:41 amJerome says:
@Bolen
“To the extent this concern is legitimate...”
So what might make the concern illegitimate? Otherwise valid contracts and legal instruments are ignored by the state for gay people but not straight people, and the concern about that, even in one instance, is not legitimate? Please.
“It’s unfortunate that people are afraid of democratic steps toward compromise on these issues because of the way courts have abused such compromises...”
Or maybe they are unwilling to compromise because their objections to gay marriage are just manifestations of their animosity to gays, and compromise is not and will not be in the cards. On this issue, it seems far more likely that people are “afraid” of (or just plain unwilling to) compromise not because the courts “abuse” (whatever that means) democratic compromises but because they just plain old don’t like homosexuals.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:52 amu. saldin says:
Roger Williams is rolling over in his grave.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:03 amArthurKirkland says:
Do I sense we are about to see an attempt to advance a libertarian case for outlawing same-sex marriage?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:26 amsitzpinkler says:
Someone who gets it.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:53 amKelly Ann says:
Well, donkeys may fly just yet! The LDS church just endorsed the Salt Lake City Council ordinances that make it unlawful to discriminate against gays in housing and employment. The church’s public support has caused quite an uproar, and has the Sutherland Institute making public slippery slope arguments.
Seems more than a little funny that Utah would be more progressive or even more *gasp* liberal than RI on LGBT issues.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:20 amAttractive Nuisance - Odious says:
[...] Absolutely odious. No principle on heaven or earth justifies this. [...]
Cornellian says:
Oh for crying out loud! It’s not Rhode Island and it’s not gays; a lot of states take this attitude toward non-relatives.
An opposite-sex couple can solve that problem immediately by getting married. Since same-sex couples don’t have that option in Rhode Island it’s a problem that affects them disproportionately.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:44 amCornellian says:
Apparently, the governor found the proposed law quite upsetting. 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.’”
Yep, rotting corpses of gay people are a small price to pay to protect that “traditional marriage.”
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:51 amDavid Newton says:
If the couple had paperwork from Connecticut and had got a civil partnership there then Rhode Island could be in serious trouble over this one. This is an issue crying out for a 14th amendment suit since it involves recognition of other states’ paperwork for marriage and civil partnerships. Traditionally such things have been recognised if they were valid under that other state’s laws, even if not necessarily strictly in line with local state law. It requires a good public policy exception such as preventing children marrying without proper consent to fail to recognise such paperwork. This situation might once have been regarded as such as public policy exception, but it certainly would not be now.
There has been an interesting case of lack of a funeral in the UK up until recently. A man’s daughter was killed in 1979 by falling off a balcony in Saudi Arabia and until now he has refused to have a funeral due to the fact he believed that she was murdered. An inquest jury returned an open verdict (basically means don’t know for sure exactly what happened but we do not believe foul play was involved) but he refused to accept the verdict. He has finally relented and the funeral took place three days ago. In that case in many ways it was exactly the opposite reason to this case that lead to no funeral, but the practical result was that a body remained in a mortuary for 30 years.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:49 ambadlaw says:
I knew when I first heard about this case that it was more than what was being reported. The real issue here is not accepting these legal documents (and I’m still unsure how specific they were) from another state. It’s the law that’s ridiculous here.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 5:35 amsubpatre says:
Jerome writes: “I have a sneaking suspicion that RI doesn’t have a policy of denying living wills, wills and powers of attorney all the time. ” and then “valid contracts and legal instruments are ignored by the state for gay people but not straight people”
The problem is that you ass·ume Rhode Island honors ‘valid contracts and legal instruments’ to some people. It does not.
Read the actual law before you spout anti-gay conspiracy theories. Rhode Island (along with many others) does not honor anything except their own series of law, including a ‘designated agent’ law.
.
Cornellian writes: “An opposite-sex couple can solve that problem immediately by getting married. Since same-sex couples don’t have that option ...”
In no state can you marry the decedent. As extensively detailed above, nor can you marry a deceased (or even non-deceased) uncle, aunt, or great-grandparent of the the same or opposite sex.
Despite your dearest wishes, the story is not about gayness or gaydom; it’s about over-intrusive, over-‘protective’ laws that need repeal.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:34 amSmallholder says:
Subpatre:
Did you really read Cornellian’s remarks as wishing for a necro-marriage?
CLearly, straight couples won’t face the ridiculousness of Rhode Island’s law because their (pre-death) marriage means the surviving spouse can make arrangements. Gay couples can’t.
Even though this couple was married in Connecticut and had registered as a civil relationship, they were treated the same way as non-related straights.
This is about gay marriage.
Those of us who are straight take so many legal rights for granted that we aren’t even aware of the inconveniences caused by discrimination against gays.
Some idiot straights even claim that gays want “special rights.” As if being treated as equal under the law was special. Equality under the law should be the start position.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:38 amegd says:
Clearly the remedy for these overbroad government laws is more overbroad government laws, it’s the only way we can fix the situation.
Originally I did support SSM, but actions like this have, over the years, convinced me that support is wrong.
“will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:50 amMatt says:
Rhode Island is the our nation’s most Catholic states, and Catholics maintain their own cemeteries.
Would this bill interfere with that group’s right to practice freedom of association?
I’m not saying that it would or wouldn’t. I didn’t read it and don’t have time. I’m just suggesting a possible rationale for the Governor’s stance.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:11 amwm13 says:
Huh? So if my daughter lives with a guy in college for a year, he is her new family and he gets to control her burial, rather than me? Have her cremated and scatter the ashes over their “medical” marijuana garden, rather than buried in the family graveyard? Is that what all the ravers here want for their own children?
Prof. Carpenter will probably delete this comment, as is his wont.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:16 amSeaDrive says:
I scanned all the way down looking for comments about the (not so) hidden hand of the Roman Catholic Church, not mentioned until the approximately 35th comment. This is religious nullification of the rule of law.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:21 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Lot of stuff about the governor and the legislature here.
What about the courts?
Was this will probated? Who was the executor? What were the decedent’s stated wishes regards his remains? Was there a challenge to the will? By whom?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:27 amDaniel Chapman says:
I’m not in favor of gay marriage, but I think this law is stupid based on the limited description I’ve gotten from this post, and I hope the veto is overridden.
Apparently I’m in the minority here, but I don’t think these views are mutually exclusive.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:30 amGrey says:
Gov’t needs to get the heck out of the marriage business, both gay and straight.
If we are really interested in a fair society that values the equality of all people, gov’t must not favor any group. The rules that they create shackle us all.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:31 ammattc says:
So? if this is the case then someone with standing may pursue some action for breach of the right of sepulchre for the deceased.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:31 amPatHMV says:
David Newton... that’s where the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) comes in, to prevent states from having to recognize same-sex marriages just because some court somewhere decided to impose it on some other state, or because some legislature chose to do so. It says that each state is allowed to make that determination for itself, whether to recognize homosexual unions or not, and that it is not required to do so just because some other state did.
WM13 makes a good point about the practical problems with the bill. If his daughter opened up a joint checking account with the guy, signed a joint lease, and lived with him in Rhode Island for more than a year, then yep, the law deems him to be the functional equivalent (for this purpose) of a spouse. No requirement that the couple solemnize their commitment, no nothing to let the person know the legal consequences of that particular cohabitation arrangement. It would have been much simpler to simply amend the law to allow any person designated in the will as a person’s heir, or any person given medical power of attorney by the person, etc., to make burial decisions. That they chose this “domestic partnership” route to amend the law suggests that it was more about the politics of establishing SSM than it was about actually solving the specific problem needing to be solved.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:39 amL Nettles says:
How would the State know they were gay?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:59 amFub says:
Maybe RI just needs a new state motto, along the lines of “Live Free but Don’t Die.”
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:00 amjpe says:
Nope. The law requires that they either own a house together or sign a domestic partner agreement. If your daughter is in the habit of purchasing homes with men she’s just met, you may want to have a chat with her about that.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:14 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Let Them Rot -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Walter Olson and Amy Alkon, Bryan Beel. Bryan Beel said: RT @walterolson R.I. governor vetoes bill giving domestic partners rights to make funeral arrangements [Carpenter/Volokh] http://is.gd/4TlVY [...]
Malvolio says:
And this is disproven because someone who didn’t fill out all the right forms had to wait — ZOMG — two extra weeks to get through some paperwork?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:16 amso and so says:
Same question as in the last SSM marriage comments thread: Would SSM advocates be satisfied if RI repealed their onerous restrictions on burial of a non-relative? The answer, I presume, will be the same: no.
The problem in this case is not the failure of the government to legalize SSM; it is that the government has unnecessarily entangled itself in issues that ought to be of no concern to it. What sense does it make to “solve” this problem through more government regulation, when government regulations created the problem to begin with? The reaction to this story is just another example of how the vast majority of SSM advocates, despite their protestations to the contrary, are not simply interested in equal legal rights, but are using the marriage question to push an agenda.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:16 amA rotten affair « Muse Free says:
[...] 12, 2009 by Abhishek Via Volokh, one learns that a bill that would have allowed domestic partners the right to provide for the [...]
Cornellian says:
Huh? So if my daughter lives with a guy in college for a year, he is her new family and he gets to control her burial, rather than me?
Nope. The law requires that they either own a house together or sign a domestic partner agreement. If your daughter is in the habit of purchasing homes with men she’s just met, you may want to have a chat with her about that.
It’s even worse, that guy she married 5 minutes before dying will control her burial, not you. Better hope your daughter turns out to be a lesbian for your sake, so she won’t be able to get married in RI and you’ll be able to avoid the risk.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:22 amCornellian says:
Same question as in the last SSM marriage comments thread: Would SSM advocates be satisfied if RI repealed their onerous restrictions on burial of a non-relative? The answer, I presume, will be the same: no.
Same question to you — do you really think burial rights are the only legal disability associated with a government refusal to recognize your marriage?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:24 amyankee says:
Considering that being able to avoid restrictions on burial of a non-relative is not exactly the only legal right associated with marriage, you shouldn’t be particularly surprised about this.
Yes, we are using the marriage question to push the gay marriage agenda. Guilty as charged.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:31 amTamerlane says:
After reading the ProJo article to which Randy linked, I discover that there was a delay of slightly over a month in the cremation of Mr. Hanby’s remains and this was apparently due entirely to the unwillingness of RI state bureaucrats to accept legal documentation of the decedent’s desires for the disposal of his remains. First, this incident was hardly the months of horror that Professor Barret hysterically suggested in his original post. Second, although it was still horrible for Mr. Hanby’s friend, it hardly requires that Rhode Island recognize domestic partnerships to rectify the situation. If the bureaucrats were in fact obeying the law, then a simple change to the laws regarding living wills and testementary disposition of remains would adequately address the problem. I sense a hidden agenda here.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:55 amBored Lawyer says:
Agree with those who wrote here that the problem is not a gay rights issue but rather an over-intrusive government issue. The State should respect someone’s testamentary wishes — where and how to be disposed of after death, living wills, etc. — regardless of gay rights.
The bill is both over and under inclusive in solving the problem. There is no need to recognize civil unions to respect individual choice as to disposition after death.
Conversely, the individual’s choice should be respected regardless of civil unions. Suppose someone writes in their will, simply, that they wish to be cremated, without designating anyone to decide anything. The State should respect that.
Or suppose they do designate someone, but not a co-habiting partner. Could be a respected friend, his clergy, or a non-blood relative (e.g. a brother-in-law.) Why is that less worthy of being respected than a partner in a civil union?
Yes, because we know that all opponents of SSM have the exact same views. It’s not possible that one can oppose SSM and at the same time be appalled by the lack of respect of an individual’s choice to be buried as he wishes in this case. (Sarcasm alert)
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:08 amzuch says:
Ahhh, yes, that most important right to be anonymously bigoted.... Where would our country be without it?
When two people stand up and say they want to be legally recognised as a couple and family, they don’t do so anonymously. When 300,000 people stand up at that moment to say, “I object!!!”, they ought to have the courage of their convictions and put their good names behind their principled objection.
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:13 amRandy says:
Malvolio: “And this is disproven because someone who didn’t fill out all the right forms had to wait — ZOMG — two extra weeks to get through some paperwork?”
No, you apparently didn’t bother reading the story. He didn’t have to ‘wait two weeks.’ He was denied all access. Only through persistently making demands did he even get anywhere, and it was only because of a sympathetic bureaucrat that he finally got the cremation.
I would like to know of any instance in which a straight married couple had to go through the same hell that he did. But of course they don’t have to — all they have to do is proclaim they are married and they get all the directions followed. When my dad died, my mother didn’t even have to provide a marriage certificate. They just took her on her word that they were married.
subpatre: “The solution is not to lard on more nannyism; it is to dismantle the existing laws that deny valid, voluntary contracts.”
Which is exactly why we are working to repeal DOMA. Glad you support our efforts.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:13 amDjDiverDan says:
I will grant you that this was one assinine and ridiculous position. But you cannot generalize this man’s action to all Republicans. Republicans are a highly varied group — some of us even think that opposing gay marriage (as well as allowing gays to serve in the military) is just bad policy. Your painting all Republicans as narrow, biggoted, intolerant, self-righteous, creationist, religious zealots is like me assuming that all Democrats are as economically illiterate, statist, elitist, and hypocritical as Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Charles Shumer, or Harry Reid. Neither party has a monopoly on idiots. Given the Democrats historic record on economic issues (“Let’s tax some more, so we can keep redistributing income to our constituencies!”), foreign affairs (“Let’s give North Korea more money and aid in exchange for empty promises; I’m certain they can be trusted this time!”) and Judicial nominees (“We cannot let Reagan get a Black Republican on the Supreme Court — Clarence Thomas can’t possibly be Black if he doesn’t think like the rest of them!”), I’ll probably never vote Democratic in any national race (local races are a whole other matter; I’ve often voted against Republican judicial nominees that were dumber than a fencepost and Board of Education nominees that couldn’t understand that “intelligent design” was NOT science), but I’d be a whole lot more comfortable with the Republican Party if we could get rid of the Christian Right, Anti-Gay, Anti-Science Zealots and the “Big Government-Corporate Welfare” branches. Generalizing about the nature of an entire population from a sample of one (and an outlier, at that) is just plain bad statistics and piss-poor logic.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:17 amRandy says:
Bored Lawyer: “Agree with those who wrote here that the problem is not a gay rights issue but rather an over-intrusive government issue. The State should respect someone’s testamentary wishes — where and how to be disposed of after death, living wills, etc. — regardless of gay rights.”
But strangely, the only time the State doesn’t respect someone’s testamentary wishes are when they times they involve gay people! So it isn’t a matter of gay rights, even though it only involved gay people. Go figure.
“Suppose someone writes in their will, simply, that they wish to be cremated, without designating anyone to decide anything. The State should respect that.
Or suppose they do designate someone, but not a co-habiting partner. Could be a respected friend, his clergy, or a non-blood relative (e.g. a brother-in-law.) Why is that less worthy of being respected than a partner in a civil union?”
So every gay person is now on notice that they should have a will drawn up directing the disposition of their remains. At what age would you, bored lawyer, suggest that we have this drawn up? Age 18? 22? Afterall, people can die at any time. Then we have to make sure that someone knows the will exists and can be found, so I guess we should have a central repository.
And if we don’t plan like this, then it’s our own damn fault for not giving explicit directions, and it’s okay for our bodies to rot while the state dawdles.
Good plan. By the way, can we get the state to pay for the costs of drawing up all these forms that married couples don’t have to?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:20 amRandy says:
Matt wins for the funniest comment: “Rhode Island is the our nation’s most Catholic states, and Catholics maintain their own cemeteries.
Would this bill interfere with that group’s right to practice freedom of association?”
Yup. Dead people have rights too! Can I put in my will explicit directions that I not be buried next to any bigots?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:28 amSteve says:
What a sick and inhumane decision. I sure hope the governor pays a political price for this.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:32 amDoc Merlin says:
Um, why not allow anyone to pay for the funeral of anyone? I am confused.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:42 amegd says:
The Funeral Planning Agent Designation form is available here. Assuming the documents presented were in the proper form, I agree that the government should have accepted them. If not, then it’s just one more thing to worry about when you’re providing these forms.
There are other problems with this law, other than that pointed out by the governor. The proposed change in the law will also provide another stepping stone to eliminate marriage altogether. Under the proposed change, any ‘domestic partner’ has the first right to determine the funeral services, over any blood relatives or guardians. The ‘domestic partner’ does not have to be someone otherwise not entitled to marriage, therefore any two individuals cohabiting would be considered ‘domestic partners.’
This law would make ‘domestic partnership’ a lower hurdle than common law marriage, which requires the individuals to hold themselves out as married. Therefore, individuals not intending to be married, or obtain the benefits/consequences of marriage, may end up considered “domestic partners” against their wishes.
Therefore, if all of the benefits of marriage are obtained without solemnization, then the concept of marriage is further eroded. No longer is it a commitment (no matter how temporary), it’s just a benefit you get once you buy a house with someone, or put them in your will, or designate them as a beneficiary on your life insurance.
Finally, this is undoubtedly an attempt to get gay marriage in through the back door. The amendment clearly conflates “domestic partner” with “spouse” in the definitions of who can determine funeral arrangements.
Is there anyone who would seriously argue that this would not be used as the basis of a future lawsuit? A plaintiff would point out that the legislature’s use of the language “spouse or domestic partner” in this bill clearly evidences the legislature’s support for equality between the two definitions. Because the legislature wants parity between spouses and domestic partners, the court should read all other laws reading “spouse” to include the language “domestic partner.”
It’s not long until we see a case similar to that in California, arguing that “domestic partnerships” should be called “marriage” because there is no functional difference between the two labels.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:47 amFub says:
Dang! I was hoping the FTC would bust ‘em both up with an anti-trust action.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:50 amegd says:
If you oppose the right to a private and secret ballot, then please come out and say so.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:54 ambyomtov says:
DJDiverDan,
I will grant you that this was one assinine and ridiculous position. But you cannot generalize this man’s action to all Republicans.
Well, you’re right of course. But the problem is you say:
I’d be a whole lot more comfortable with the Republican Party if we could get rid of the Christian Right, Anti-Gay, Anti-Science Zealots and the “Big Government-Corporate Welfare” branches.
That is the Republican Party, not in the sense that all GOP’ers fall into one of those groups, but in the sense that the GOP wouldn’t exist without them. And then you have the tea-partiers, birthers, Palinites, Beck, Bachmann, Limbaugh, etc. Sensible Republicans have simply let themselves be crowded out by lunatics.
So yes, I over-generalized. And there are undoubtedly some Democrats who are idiots (though I’d disagree about the ones you name) but the notion that there is equivalence is just wrong. The Republican party, as it exists today, is, IMO, a perfect example of the inmates running the asylum. (What do you think of Michael Steele?) Not so the Democrats.
That will draw some angry responses, no doubt, including maybe from you, but that’s the way I see it.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:00 pmBama 1L says:
Do I have to spell it out for you? If everyone has to make a will, then lawyers will be less bored.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:03 pmRiskable says:
I don’t think this issue will change many minds regarding same-sex marriage. My guess is that at this point in the debate those who still oppose SSM are just deferring their judgment to their religion or some other strict belief system. So until prominent figures or church officials with whom they obey/relate change their minds about SSM the opponents of SSM will continue to oppose it.
–Riskable
“If your religious authority derives its morals from the Old Testament remember that in the Old Testament the ten punishments for violating the Ten Commandments are death, death, death, death, death, death, death, death, death, and ‘feces on their faces’.”
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:08 pmJeff R. says:
PatHMV: That does make this case look like as good a vehicle as any imaginable to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA, doesn’t it...?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:09 pmShelbyC says:
It’s not hidden. Gays aren’t terribly concerned about reforming the laws regarding living wills and testementary disposition of remains. They want gay marriage.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:10 pmTCO says:
Same issue would arise if I had a live in girlfriend die.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:22 pmRandy says:
egd: “The proposed change in the law will also provide another stepping stone to eliminate marriage altogether. Under the proposed change, any ‘domestic partner’ has the first right to determine the funeral services, over any blood relatives or guardians. The ‘domestic partner’ does not have to be someone otherwise not entitled to marriage, therefore any two individuals cohabiting would be considered ‘domestic partners.’”
Exactly! Now you’re getting smart. DPs are only a stop gap measure. People realize that gays should have certain rights vis-a-vis their partner, but the big bad conservatives don’t want to allow SSM. Hence, DPs were created as a compromise. Of course, it doesn’t give all the rights of marriage, only some, so gays still lose out. But you are absolutely right — DP undermine marriage. Why get married when you have many of the same benefits of marriage?
Therefore, any principled conservative who is concerned about marriage would insist that gays have marriage and nothing less, and eliminate the category of DP altogether for everyone. Creating a new entity and calling it a DP is the radical new solution, so one would think that conservatives wouldn’t want that, but apparently it’s the only viable solution right now since they are terrified that if gays get married, something really awful will happen.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:23 pmRandy says:
Furthermore, by refusing to allow gays to get married, any denying all rights to gay couples that marrieds have, we are setting up an example of how irrelevant traditional marriage really is.
You see, gay will keep coupling up, living together, pledging their lives to each other, adopting and raising kids. Doing all the exact same things a married couple would do to raise a family. If we can do it successfully (and we do), then we are a great example to all the heteros out there that marriage isn’t necessary at all. Sure, it’s more inconvenient — we have to fill out forms and all, but as many of you point out, that’s not so hard or onerous. Just fill them all out, pay your attorney a few thousand, and make sure you carry them with you at all times in cases of emergency.
A true conservative would find this alarming and insist that gays get married, especially if they have kids, so that they kids have all the advantages that married parents have. But hey, if you want to erode marriage, the best thing to do is to insist that it’s irrelevant to raising a family.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:27 pmJeff says:
If we let people bury their gay spouse, pretty soon they’ll want to bury their dogs and cats and who knows what else!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:58 pmDjDiverDan says:
No, the Democrats are the inmates running (ruining?) the whole country — a much scarier thought.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:01 pmMalvolio says:
So he was denied all access until he wasn’t denied access. Yes, dealing with bureaucracy sucks. SSM, whatever its benefits, isn’t going to fix that.
And if you find any such instance you will, what, change your mind on SSM?
You’re kidding me, right? You actually think the Democrats — the party of Blagojevich, Dodd, Frank, both Clintons, Geithner, Ted Kennedy, and William Jefferson — are morally superior to the Republicans? Wow, well, I don’t know about your planet, but here on Earth, the Donkey and the Elephant are pretty much neck-and-neck in the Most Reprehensible contest.
I see your birthers and raise you the truthers!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:12 pmCrunchy Frog says:
This would not be the first time the Funeral industry lobby got stupid and unfair laws passed for their convenience (e.g. not being able to use a casket bought from an outside source). Living Wills, Powers of Attorney, et al should certainly be enough to satisfy anyone, if drafted properly.
To Randy, zuch, byomtov, et al:
This has been said before on other threads (not by me) by apparently still needs to be repeated — might I respectfully suggest that you take the page in your dictionary with the word ‘bigot’ and toss it in the recycle bin. It’s not helping. All it does is piss me off the same way that I am over being called ‘racist’ for being against Affirmative Action.
I am exactly the type of person you need to convince — white male, 43, 2 kids, lib-leaning R in a blue state (CA), very pro-DP, mildly anti-SSM. Voted for Prop 8. Regular churchgoer/volunteer (though that is only relevant in that I know where the anti-gay crowd is coming from). Would come out in favor of gay marriage IF the Gay Lobby (TM) wasn’t constantly trying to use the public school system to foist its agenda on our kids by way of books such as ‘My Two Mommies’ and considering a gay ‘dedication’ ceremony as a ‘teaching moment’ and hauling off the entire class to attend.
Oh, and you might want to ditch the Gay Pride freak shows as well. If orientation is as immutable as left-handedness, then what’s to be proud of? It’s an accident of birth, and just is. I’m not proud of my Danish heritage — I had nothing to do with it. It just is. Be proud of your accomplishments, of the choices you make, and the actions you take — not over something you have no control over.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:47 pmMalvolio says:
Hmmmm, maybe. DOMA is presumably a “general” law (a non-general law would be “nobody has to listen to Massachusetts”, I think), but the SG could argue that “the effects thereof” could be construed broadly to include “ignore marriage certificates from another state if it’s for two dudes and that squicks you out.”
But wouldn’t this guy’s case be moot, since it isn’t likely to repeat itself for him?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:48 pmSarcastro says:
It’s not a gay problem that gays must go through bureaucracy to get something done while straights sil on through, it’s a bureaucracy problem! Mainly that the bureaucracy only applies to gays.
And it is totally wrong to think your side is morally superior. The only truly morally superior position is to call all sides Reprehensible and then throw rocks from the sidelines!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:49 pmKen Arromdee says:
It seems to me that if a state is going to ignore living wills and powers of attorney, there’s nothing stopping them from ignoring marriage certificates as well. I don’t see how you get anything here from marriage.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:07 pmbadlaw says:
This case seems a little...convenient? I don’t know. All of his legal documents were from CT, correct? He and his partner moved to to RI, where they don’t have legal DPs or SSM, right? And the partner didn’t have the wherewithal to establish POA and living wills within that state? Hmm.
I don’t think anything is going to happen on the gay marriage front because of this, but this is a dumb law, and a breach of FF&C based on the fact that he did have legal documents from another state. But one would think if he had all those items in CT where they have legal marriage, he’d have sense enough to establish that within the state of RI, where they’re essentially not recognized.
Also, advocating for gay marriage because you want to be lazy or cheap isn’t very convincing. Yeah sure if these guys were able to marry in RI, this spouse wouldn’t have this problem. So what? The law in and of itself is ridiculous, and I’m pretty sure it was unlawful for them to not accept the man’s legal documents (assuming there was no hanky-panky or loopholing going on). Nobody condones disregarding legal documents, but just because it would be easier (or cheaper) if you could just marry, that doesn’t change anything.
Of course, the only point people ever want to make about gay marriage is that a lot of people are bigots and homophobes.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:10 pmegd says:
Actually, I’ve always been smart, thank you. But I think you’re missing the point. The point isn’t that DPs are an insufficient substitute for gay marriage, the point is that DPs undermine marriage in its entirety. By affording rights to individuals who are unwilling to comply with the formal requirements of marriage, marriage becomes less of a social control and more of a religious ideal.
When the state removes the formal requirements for marriage benefits, then those benefits act as social welfare, rather than what they should be, social control. Social control says that when individuals act in certain ways, they are benefited. This benefit tends to cause people to behave in that manner. Marriage is a set of bundled benefits — taxes, inheritance, access to medical records, spousal privilege, etc. — that the state affords to people who make a lifelong commitment to preserving the social structure, namely having a family and raising children.
When the state weakens the marriage requirements, or makes divorce easier to obtain, the family unit, and consequently the social structure, is damaged. Providing domestic partnership benefits as described in the vetoed law makes marriage much, much easier to enter and leave. The consequence is more broken families, more children raised in single-parent households, and more social disorder.
Therefore, domestic partnerships should not be a substitute for marriage.
I have not seen any arguments as to how allowing gay marriage promotes the social structure or any government interest (although eliminating harassment of Christians may be a valid argument, it is really just giving in to the heckler’s veto). Instead, states have procedures by which non-married individuals, whether gay couples or best friends, can obtain almost all of the same benefits married individuals enjoy.
The main complaint I see from the pro-SSM crowd is that it’s not easy to obtain all of these benefits, there’s no automatic mechanism for receiving them. To that end, I would suggest that domestic partnerships are an appropriate mechanism for granting a combined set of rights. Rather than require gay couples to sign wills, power of attorney forms, funeral forms, and all other manner of rights-granting agreements, the domestic partnership arrangement can provide a universal assignment of rights from one person to another.
But in order to safeguard against the gradual destruction of marriage and social order that domestic-partnerships afford for non-married, marriage-eligible individuals, any domestic partnership law must require that the individuals so contracting are not otherwise marriage eligible. Otherwise, the law is creating a social welfare system, rather than a social control system.
Agreed. Which is why I support pro-family causes, and vehemently oppose welfare. I assume you do as well, right? Because nothing has done more to destroy marriage (and therefore harm children) than the modern welfare system.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:38 pmbyomtov says:
I see your birthers and raise you the truthers!
I’ll reraise the torturers and the people who knew exactly where those WMD were in Iraq. It’s not hard to be morally superior to Dick Cheney and company.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:22 pmso and so says:
Of course it isn’t the only legal right associated with marriage and I never said that. However, that completely ignores that all of those rights can be adequately protected through private arrangements. It further begs the question of whether the government should be involved in marriage at all (which it should not and which I would think more people would support on a libertarian blog).
Cute, but you know that’s not what I meant.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:24 pmzuch says:
That of course is a different right (than the right to be anonymously bigoted). But, come to think of it, that is not a right that’s been enshrined into our Constitution: There is no constitutional requirement for a secret ballot (even if it’s a good idea). Sorry, but that’s the way it is.
But note that I didn’t state that the secret ballot should be eliminated. What I said is that the bigots ought to make themselves known, so we can see them for what (and who) they are:
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:39 pmgasman says:
As a matter of simple contract that could be effected between any two persons: I grant this person all the rights and privileges associated with the legal status of marriage that are not expressly forbidden by state law.
Would that cover many of the myriad details of domestic partnership/gay marriage that is needed?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:43 pmzuch says:
Crunchy Frog says:
Not sure what would “convince” you. You seems not to understand the fundamentals of the dispute, and I’m not sure that anything I say would get you over that hump:
It’s crapola like this propaganda that makes me think that the “teachable moment” has long since left the building. Note to you here, Crunchy: If you think your kids are at risk of <*gasp*> ideas entering their rostral neural ganglia, you really don’t have an ‘effin’ clue as to what’s happening in the real world ... or in parenting.
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:48 pmKen Arromdee says:
Much of the reason they want to stay anonymous has little to do with the courage of their convictions and a lot to do with people calling them at 3 AM or throwing rocks through their window. In an ideal world where anyone who commits harassment is immediately caught and sentenced, anonymity may be less necessary.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:58 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Way to win friends and influence people, douchebag. You want to criticize my golf game while you’re at it?
Grow up people. Stop trying to make cheap rhetorical points at the expense of those who could be persuaded to join your cause. Maybe you’ve failed to realize, but you’re now 0–32. Perhaps you may want to adapt your tactics to reality.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:29 pmLeo Marvin says:
Next thing you know they’ll want the right to bury their siblings.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:48 pmOren says:
You say “agenda” likes it’s a bad thing. Our schools teach all sorts of things under the supervision of the school board. Why is “The Prince and the Prince” any different than say, “Johnny Got his Gun”? Trumbo’s absolutist pacifism is not universal — I, for one, vehemently disagree with it, and therefore think the entire book sends the wrong message.
Does teaching it give me a cause against the “pacifist agenda”? Of course not, it’s just a book and the values espoused in that book are not the only ones on the planet that one could possibly believe. In other words, there is a whole universe of ideas out jostling around our collective minds and just because an idea is presented in the form of a bound volume of dead trees does not confer on it automatic acceptance. We can chose what we believe, and most kids will figure this out long before their parents come to their senses.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:49 pmOren says:
[ PS. On the substance, agree with PatHMV. This case has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with RI’s perverse refusal to give effect to a duly-signed will. ]
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:50 pmRandy says:
Malvolio: “And if you find any such instance you will, what, change your mind on SSM?No. But I was responding to someone who claimed this isn’t a gay issue. If it isn’t, then surely this has happened to straight couples. The fact that it happens only to gay couples makes it a gay issue.
Crunchy Frog: “might I respectfully suggest that you take the page in your dictionary with the word ‘bigot’ and toss it in the recycle bin.” Point well taken. which is why I didn’t call anyone here a bigot. I merely said I don’t want to be buried next to one. Surely you are agree that there are at least some true bigots that exist?
” Would come out in favor of gay marriage IF the Gay Lobby (TM) wasn’t constantly trying to use the public school system to foist its agenda on our kids by way of books such as ‘My Two Mommies’ and considering a gay ‘dedication’ ceremony as a ‘teaching moment’ and hauling off the entire class to attend.”
And yet, you probably don’t complain when schools teach that black people exist, and black parents. Or disabled people. Or old people. It’s a big world out there, and merely informing children of the fact that some of their classmates might have two mommies hardly seems very threatening.
“Oh, and you might want to ditch the Gay Pride freak shows as well.”
Sure! Just as soon you straight people ditch the Mardi Gras freak shows and the Hallowween freak shows.
“I’m not proud of my Danish heritage.” Perhaps you should be. And if you should be so inclined to start your own version of St. Pat’s day, you know, a drunken orgy where everyone gets plastered, I won’t complain. In fact, I’ll help you celebrate. Deal?
Badlaw: “This case seems a little...convenient?”
Clearly, the couple got married then moved to RI (which, of course, they absolutely had NO business doing), and then one killed himself just so that the other would have to go through all the hell of getting him buried, just to advance the Gay Agenda.
Of course.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 5:21 pmCrunchy Frog says:
It is, and they shouldn’t, at least until well into high school. Sorry, but I don’t need my (now, but this started much earlier) 6th-grader lecturing me on AGW, or Affirmative Action, or why I should vote to approve the next school bond measure. Put that energy into the 3 R’s and leave partisan political causes well out of it.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 5:29 pmegd says:
You’re correct in that there’s no constitutional right to a secret ballot, but most (all?) jurisdictions have some form of secret ballot, which take the form of a right based on statute. It’s a right because there are consequences for anyone who interferes with that activity.
If you’re opposed to the secret ballot, then you should come out and say so. I don’t think such a position is easily defensible from a political standpoint, but you’re free to take that stand.
Why not have the courage to state your convictions, that the secret ballot should be discontinued and political groups should be free to harass anyone who votes against their beliefs. I’m sure it will work well.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 5:40 pmRandy says:
Crunchy Frog: “It is, and they shouldn’t, at least until well into high school.”
Not if you are in CA or Maine. Recently there were ballot issues to remove marriage rights by the anti-SSM crowd. Thanks to the battle that they brought to the public, tv and radio were filled with ads about how terrible homosexual marriages are. I have numerous friends with school aged kids who then asked what these are, and the parents dutifully explained. Kids, it turns out, listen to the same stuff we do.
So, I guess the lesson here is if your state legislature or courts allow SSM, don’t bring a ballot issue to remove it unless you want to expose your schoolkids to these ideas.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 5:59 pmOnly sane one left says:
Living Wills, Powers of Attorney, et al should certainly be enough to satisfy anyone, if drafted properly.
Almost no one commenting here seems to realize that at the moment of death all powers of attorney and living wills become null and void. That legal principle applies in all states and to gays, heteros, polygamists, bestiality practicioners, and the celibate.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 6:05 pmOnly sane one left says:
Living Wills, Powers of Attorney, et al should certainly be enough to satisfy anyone, if drafted properly.
Almost no one commenting here seems to realize that at the moment of death all powers of attorney and living wills become null and void. That legal principle applies in all states and to gays, heteros, polygamists, bestiality practicioners, and the celibate.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 6:05 pmuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by walterolson: R.I. governor vetoes bill giving domestic partners rights to make funeral arrangements [Carpenter/Volokh] http://is.gd/4TlVY...
Crunchy Frog says:
I don’t know how it was in Maine, but in my little corner of CA (LA County) the ads on both sides were ridiculously deceptive. The pro-8 side’s message consisted of “Save Traditional Marriage” (like all married people were going to be instantly divorced, with the kids shipped off to orphanages or something), while the anti-8 ads only talked about “fairness” and “fundamental rights” without ever attempting to explain which fundamental right they were talking about. SSM was never mentioned.
In hindsight, had the No On 8 crowd been more forthright, the vote might have gone differently (or at least the margin of victory would have been less). Or maybe not. At that point, everyone was mad enough at the CA Supreme Court that little rational discourse was possible.
Patience. Give it a few years and bring it up in a ballot measure, say in 2014 (when Obama is not on the ballot, and the minorities he carried won’t show up), and win the old fashioned way. Do it right and you’ll have my vote, and tens of thousands like me. No more attempted end runs around the will of the people. They’ve spoken. Twice.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 6:57 pmzuch says:
Look, when you think that teh Gay is insidiously turning your kids homo with their “Heather Has Two Mommies” books, you’re beyond reach. You seem to take umbrage very easily, so it really doesn’t matter much what I say to you. M’kay?
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:34 pmzuch says:
My point as well, but you said it more eloquently.
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:36 pmzuch says:
You know, I think that gays have much more reason to fear harassment (and even beatings and murder) than do the fundies and other ‘sordid bigots. Think “Matthew Shepard”. So you’re worried that this solid majority that is voting down gay rights in state after state is gonna be persecuted?!?!? Get off it.
There was a reason the Klan chose robes and hoods ... and it wasn’t because some nigras were going to toss rocks through their living room windows....
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:40 pmzuch says:
Oh, c’mon. Never too late to start learning. ;-)
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:43 pmzuch says:
There’s severe consequences for interfering with voting. Because voting is a right. Not so much if secrecy is violated.
I already addressed this here. Pay attention.
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:47 pmbadlaw says:
Randy, I don’t think it’s against the rules here to not try and be cute and witty whenever you disagree with people.
Considering all your posts ever consist of is accusations and broad sweeping generalities, capped off by little comments like the one above, I’d say you have very little room to complain about people being bigots when you seem to revel in starting drama and drumming up ire...all so you can turn around and complain about it later. The worst part is people like you are so pervasive in this debate.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:00 pmRandy says:
Badlaw: ” Randy, I don’t think it’s against the rules here to not try and be cute and witty whenever you disagree with people.”
I’m sorry that you are so upset, but anyone who suggests, without any evidence whatsoever, that this couple staged a death just to prove a point is beyond ridicule.
” I’d say you have very little room to complain about people being bigots when you seem to revel in starting drama and drumming up ire.”
I did say that there are bigots in the world, though I didn’t accuse anyone here. Now , if you disagree and want to say that there are no bigots anywhere, then you are free to do so, but then you would be making the sweeping generalities that you complain about.
And I also point out that I have asked twice for instances in which straight people have had this sort of predicament, or had their marriage challenged, and no one, including yourself, have been able to supply such evidence. From that, I conclude that the problem doesn’t exist for straight people, but it does for gays Is that a ‘sweeping generalization’? Then I invite you to prove me wrong. If you can’t, then you are of course free to ignore any posts with my name attached to it.
As for starting drama, you might want to complain to Prof. Carpenter, since he is the one who originated the post. I also linked to the relevant article, which several people found helpful for providing more information. I’m sorry that the reality of our lives is so annoying to you, but it’s I think the more people know about it, the more
“The worst part is people like you are so pervasive in this debate.”
Nothing like hitting a sweeping generalization with one of your own.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:20 pmoren says:
But you can’t teach anything at all by that standard because someone, somewhere, thinks it’s partisan. The Wizard of Oz was considered to be a partisan piece, as is almost any literature I can think about. Lord of the Rings certainly has an opinion, as do all of Dalton Trumbo or Douglas Adams’ works, A Wrinkle in Time, Catcher in the Rye, Discworld and just about everything I can remember reading before high school was about ideas.
You prescription would basically remove all reading from the 3 R’s except for the most bland books that no one wants to read anyway. Even the literature for the youngest children (“fairy tales” and such like) are jam-packed with normative statements about life and society and what it means to be a human. Taking that away from our children because some of those ideas conflict with other ideas is ludicrous on its face. It belies a serious lack of trust in the ability of the next generation to absorb the lessons of the past and (ultimately) reshape our society.
I was talking about a regular will (last will and testament), which should be respected without question unless there is evidence that it was signed under duress, if the signer was not of proper mind at the time or if the action specified would be illegal. Otherwise, you should respect the wishes of the dead with respect to their property and remains. I can scae
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:25 pmRandy says:
Crunchy Frog: “In hindsight, had the No On 8 crowd been more forthright, the vote might have gone differently (or at least the margin of victory would have been less). Or maybe not. ”
Totally agree. The Yes on 8 crowd was pretty odious, but the No side (our side) ignored the real issues and tried to avoid the fact that this was about gays getting married.
“Do it right and you’ll have my vote, and tens of thousands like me.”
Thanks! And if we do get your vote, we’ll do everything we can to make sure we make your wedding anniversaries extra-fabulous!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:26 pmCornellian says:
Crunchy Frog: “In hindsight, had the No On 8 crowd been more forthright, the vote might have gone differently (or at least the margin of victory would have been less). Or maybe not. ”
Totally agree. The Yes on 8 crowd was pretty odious, but the No side (our side) ignored the real issues and tried to avoid the fact that this was about gays getting married.
After seeing “Milk” I had to wonder what the campaign would have looked like if Harvey Milk had been around to work on it instead of the hopelessly ineffectual people we had this time around.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:52 pmbadlaw says:
That wasn’t what I was suggesting. I’m thinking there might be more to the story than what’s being reported, not that this is all staged to prove a point. That would be a ridiculous assertion...which is why you should probably be clear on what someone is suggesting before ridiculing them.
This is the kind of silliness I’m talking about.
Under this law, it could very easily pertain to straight people. It had nothing to do with gay people, except that this situation was with a gay couple that wasn’t recognized in a state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage. But without next-of-kin and the proper paperwork, a straight, nonmarried could’ve faced a similar problem. Less likely, but still possible. It’s more about the law in place and the denial of legal documents granting medical POA that’s the issue here.
And I practice my freedom to ignore your posts most of the time, but you responded to me with an attitude, which is why I’m responding to you now. Of course, that is exactly what someone who likes to stir the pot would say.
...the more what?
Why you’re still trying to be passive-aggressive and accuse me of nonsense all to deflect from the fact that you can’t go one comment without being needlessly confrontational (but never admitting that you’re actually confrontational for sport and not because people are just making wildly absurd claims) is astonishing to me.
Not a generalization, just an observation. Here’s a sweeping generalization: there’s a combative, uncomfortable accusatory tone that underlies most issues with a “gay” component to it, and all it ever serves to do is put people on the defensive and gives people like you an opportunity to complain about oppression all while blatantly soliciting hostility...hostility that you will then try to pawn off as being anti-gay bigotry or discomfort at the notion of equal rights for gays and lesbians when it’s really hostility for your methods.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:28 amzuch says:
“Physician, heal thyself.”
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:31 amAnatid says:
I actually did a double-take when I read this. I’ve never seen the specific word “partisan” used before to describe mentioning homosexuality in classrooms. When I grew up, everyone was pretty blase — some kids had two mommies or two daddies, and we didn’t think anything of it. When we were 12–14 (sorry, if you wait till “well into high school” then you’ve missed the bus) it turned out that some of the boys liked boys and some of the girls liked girls, or liked both. Gay, bi, and straight kids alike dated, gossiped, had relationships, made fun of each other.
Simply knowing that homosexuality exists isn’t going to make your straight kid suddenly turn gay, or put on a leather thong and walk in a parade. It’s simply exposing your kid to a fact of life (that, from the sound of it, he isn’t getting at home) that will help him understand a rather confusing world as he develops.
Calling this fact of life “partisan” seems about as arbitrary as calling the Krebs cycle in biology class partisan. (If you don’t know what the Krebs cycle is, wait till your kid takes AP Biology and then s/he can tell you. Bio’s come a long way since you took it in high school or college. Don’t assume that your children can’t learn something you yourself don’t know.)
I’m not trying to attack your view, I’m just trying to share my own perspective, because we clearly have very different backgrounds. To go further, I’ve also understood since I was old enough to make such judgments that the Disney princess cartoons (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid, etc.) are quite sexist. They contain messages that teach girls that women are supposed to be helpless, passive creatures whose lives aren’t complete without men, and I’d be uncomfortable if a teacher was giving those messages to my kids.
Obviously, not everyone shares this view, and I’m sure most people see nothing wrong with saturating their daughters with princess stories. Most girls love princess stories, and the helpless-princess archetype is common. I’m certainly not going to try and get those books removed from the classrooms. I’d rather talk to my kids about what they saw in the books and expose them to other viewpoints as well. Then let them form their own opinions about how they feel and who they are.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:14 amtom says:
I see a lot of discussion here about majority opposing gay marriage. That seems like a bit of a mistaken position. In Maine for instance the turnout was between 50% and 60% with the final vote tally ~53% to ~47%.
If you think about it that means ~28–32% of the eligible voters against, ~23–28% for, and %40–50 abstaining. Since we don’t know why or how the abstaining plurality did not vote, we can hardly infer that a majority of the population is against gay marriage (the converse is also true).
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:19 amMartha says:
I was surprised by this comment. Lately, my 4th grader has been talking a lot about global warming. Her concern reassures me that her science lessons are being related to real life issues that she sees on tv anyway. I like knowing what she is thinking, and I like being able to correct her when necessary (no, it’s not because of global warming that it’s hot in the summer; no, it’s not appropriate for you to criticize the Sunday School teacher for “killing trees”; hey, speaking of global warming, how about turning off some of these lights?). Often, it’s obvious that she brings these topics up because she wants to know what I think about them.
Exactly. Responsible parenting involves talking with kids about about important issues, and it’s not hard to discuss sexism, global warming, affirmative action, even bond issues, at an age-appropriate level. Why would anyone want to delay these conversations until high school? By then, our teens will probably know everything and not see a point in talking to us.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:38 amegd says:
Well if you’re not going to be consistent in your arguments, then I don’t really see any point in continuing this discussion.
When did this turn into a discussion about methamphetamine dealers?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:46 amzuch says:
I don’t know, and I don’t like it. But enough about you ... can we get back to the discussion?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:14 amRandy says:
Badlaw: “Under this law, it could very easily pertain to straight people.”
And yet, no evidence of any straight couples having to go through it. Strange isn’t it?
” there’s a combative, uncomfortable accusatory tone that underlies most issues with a “gay” component to it, and all it ever serves to do is put people on the defensive”
You mean like how people are often on the defensive when it comes to religious freedom? Apparently, you skip over the combative posts whenever someone argues about how gay rights will destroy religion or destroy marriage in the US.
I agree that sometimes I’m combative, although I try not to be. But when people assume that just because you are gay you are anti-religion and want to foist shove our disgusting lifestyle down everyone’s throats, and that we seek revenge on all who oppose us, well, it’s a little hard to say anything that doens’t come across as combative.
I wonder if you would consider comments such as these ‘combative’: ” but Dale Carpenter should hang his head in shame also.” “Despite your dearest wishes, the story is not about gayness or gaydom” “s that what all the ravers here want for their own children?” “ou might want to ditch the Gay Pride freak shows as well. If orientation is as immutable as left-handedness, then what’s to be proud of?”
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:28 amLymis says:
Uh...not so much.
Sure, it can, and likely does, pertain to straight people who choose not to get married and make no other provisions for end-of-life decisions.
But this is a couple that not only wanted to get married, they DID get married. They had wills. They had powers of attorney, they shared finances. They did everything that it was possible for them do, and yet, the survivor got the runaround.
You honestly think that this would have happened to a straight couple living in Rhode Island that got married in Massachusetts?
It isn’t that this can happen to some straight couples who don’t bother to take the steps that keep it from happening. It is that there is nothing that gay couples can do to keep it from happening. That is a big difference.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:55 pmSmallholder says:
Crunchy Frog Wrote:
You can be against affirmative action without being a bigot. Sure, lots of people who oppose affirmative action are bigots, but it is entirely possible to oppose affirmative action because you believe it is counterproductive to the goal of racial equality.
Your analogy doesn’t hold for opponents of gay marriage. Saying that a package of rights (some as ridiculous as being able to speak for your dead spouse in a Rhode Island funeral home) shouldn’t be given to gays because they are icky or something isn’t actually arguing for the equality of people. It is, even if you are loathe to admit it and engage in incredible mental acrobats to find a way to frame it in other terms, arguing for inequality and discrimination. Straight people get “x” and gay people don’t “x.”
So, Crunchy Frog (if that is your real name), you’re a bigot.
Oooooh. I said it.
Now, I’m not going to go out and throw rocks at bigots’ houses.
But I am going to clearly say that I find your way of thinking offensive. I suppose that is really why folks are so concerned about keeping their support for ballot initiatives secret — they see the writing on the wall, know they will lose, and are afraid that there will be social stigma attached to them in a generation.
There will.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:33 pmSmallholder says:
Badlaw writes:
Well, I’m not uncomfortable or gay. I’m a Christian married straight guy with four kids, a veteran, a farmer, and a hunter. I’m about as redneck as you can get — except that I don’t dislike people who are different from me.
Even though I’m not uncomfortable or gay, I’m happy to oblige on the combative and accusatory front. Those who were persuadable through reason have been persuaded. Those who are still out there fighting a rear guard action for injustice ought to be defensive. As I said to Crunchy Frog, you are bigots — there is not an intellectually defensible reason to support discrimination that hasn’t been demolished here and elsewhere. I’ll accept a religious argument that being gay is wrong — I’m fully aware that religion isn’t amenable to logical debate — I worship an antrhopomorphic supreme being and even eat his flesh every seven days. But when folks use their religion as a basis to argue for discrimination, it just reminds me of the Christian councils in Alabama circa 1960. If your religion says it’s wrong to eat pork, then don’t eat pork. Don’t try to outlaw pork for everybody else.
I’m not sure why you put “gay” in quotes. Some folks on this thread are making a big deal that the law could, just could, apply to some straight people as well. That’s like arguing that the literacy tests used for Black South Carolina veterans in 1946 could, just could, have been used against whites too. They aren’t.
The issue of burial is a pretty random one. But it is a concrete example of the fact that marriage carries with it a host of state sponsored rights and privileges denied to American citizens based on an immutable quality — a quality that doesn’t harm others in the slightest. Solving this one issue won’t end the discrimination against gays — but this one issue does reveal in a concrete way that the discrimination exists. I’ll admit some of the previous posters have engaged in some interesting mental acrobatics in order to deny that any discrimination occurred. Unconvincing acrobatics, but acrobatics nonetheless.
What is interesting is how important it is to some people to find a way to keep gays outside the marriage circle while at the same time denying that there is any discrimination at all.
I don’t understand why the bigots aren’t more honest. If you sincerely believe that God hates fags, just admit that you want to burden them with government-mandated inequality as punishment for their evil ways. At least Reverend Phelps is honest.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:50 pmSmallholder says:
And the Reverend Phelps award goes to:
egd wrote:
Really?
A kid is brutally murdered for being gay and you want to distract mention from that horrible reality by pointing to his drug habit?
Is your point really that it’s okay to kill gay kids if they are also drug users.
Dude, in a thread filled with bigots, you win. Kudos to you.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:59 pmKen Arromdee says:
Your child could just as well bring up questions, want to know your opinion, etc. if the schools taught that there isn’t such a thing as global warming. Your child could just as well do that if taught creationism, or a thousand other things that you probably don’t want taught in schools.
For that matter, wouldn’t it then be okay for your child to be taught that everyone should be a member of the Democratic party? After all it’s something you as a parent could and should discuss with her, and if you’re a good parent she wouldn’t blindly follow the teacher in this matter.
Your line of reasoning here suggests it shouldn’t matter what kids are taught at school at all.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:21 pmGuy says:
Ken,
I think the rule is that children can be taught things that are true, but not false things or normative judgments beyond basic social rules about respecting others. For example, gay people exist: ok. The average temperature of the world is rising: ok. Some scientists think said rise is caused by humans, some don’t: ok. Creationism is a legitimate science: not ok. Gay marriage should be legal: not ok. Let’s have a class discussion about whether gay marriage ought to be legal: ok (by junior high, at least). You shouldn’t bully someone for being gay: ok (at any grade level).
any objections to these?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:58 pmRandy says:
Lymis: ” That is a big difference.”
Sure is. The law applies to both straight and gay couples, but, as has been pointed out repeatedly, only gay couples suffer. It reminds me of the quote by Victor Hugo: The law, in all its majesty, prohibits both rich and poor alike from sleeping under the bridges.
Smallholder: “So, Crunchy Frog (if that is your real name), you’re a bigot.”
I wouldn’t say that. CF did say that he would vote for gay marriage at some point, and if he were a bigot, he wouldn’t have said such a thing. So I would have to defend him.
I think there are a lot of people who actually might very well be in favor of SSM, but they are concerned about the effects. They are worried about freedom of religion, what is taught to their kids, etc. I don’t think that there is anything to worry about, but I can certainly understand the concern. And if you get your information and opinions from biased sources, then it would be a concern.
So our job is to counter those perceptions and show them why they are unwarranted. some people don’t want to hear that — some find any defense of gay issues to be ‘combative’ or ‘accusatory’. These people just want gays to disappear so that they don’t have to deal with us anymore. They are also very quick to find some perceived injustice against straights, religions, or whatever, that is the fault of gays. These people will never be persuaded, so I really don’t care if they are pissed off.
People like CF, I do care about, because they see us as regular human beings, although we might have a difference of opinion on things. That’s a critical difference, and one I am very happy to live with.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:59 pmzuch says:
Some scientists think the world is 6000 years old and was created in six days, some don’t. OK or not OK?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:34 pmMartha says:
Ken: What Guy says. (Thanks, Guy.)
An aside: I *was* taught creationism in public school. My 5th grade science teacher spent at least one class period on it. I remember being disturbed because the image of God on the teacher’s transparencies did not match the image of God I had learned from Sunday School. My parents explained that every 5th grade science teacher in the school district had to teach that lesson, but that in our church, we didn’t believe in everything the teacher said. Life went on. As an adult, I think teaching creationism in science class is wrong (because it isn’t science), but we shouldn’t underestimate children’s resilience or parents’ influence.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:40 pmMartha says:
Zuch, I’d be ok with that one fix.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:42 pmAnatid says:
Martha, try “overwhelming majority,” not “most.”
It’s kinda an apples and oranges sort of thing, zuch.
Global climate change is a fairly recent area of study, and must take into account dozens upon dozens of manmade and planetary factors, such as distribution of continental plates, the planet’s precession in relation to the sun, carbon dioxide and methane emissions, shifting surface albido, and others. It’s complicated, and even the most powerful supercomputers (like EarthSim) are having a hard time extricating the manmade factors from the planetary ones.
Teaching that there are many factors involved, and that different scientists weight them differently, is fine.
But the concept that the earth is 6000 years old? There’s no evidence whatsoever, anywhere in the geological record, that would point to this. The only reason why anyone thinks this is that a vocal minority of folks is blindly following, to the letter and without allowing room for metaphor, the metaphysical speculations of a desert tribe from 4000 years ago. The evidence indicating the actual age of the earth, about ~4.6 billion years, is overwhelming. That number will certain be adjusted as further research techniques develop, but 6000 years is just ridiculous.
What do you want teachers to say? Spend a semester teaching vertebrate evolution, explaining the processes of mineralization and sedimentation and subduction and natural selection and selective adaptation ... and then add in, “Oh, hey, if this one particular religious text is true, then all the papers we just had you read may be based on an elaborate hoax by God, in which case forget it all”? By all means, teach that creationism exists, but it belongs in religion class or social studies class, not science class.
... Just saying it’s not the best comparison.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:09 pmKen Arromdee says:
The post I was replying to used this reasoning to explain why it’s okay for schools to teach kids “sexism, global warming, affirmative action, even bond issues, at an age-appropriate level.”
It takes a very strained reading to interpret this as “it’s okay to teach kids that affirmative action exists”. It’s obviously saying that it’s okay to teach kids to support affirmative action, bond issues, particular ideas of what is sexist and of how to stop global warming, etc. These are indeed normative judgments.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:19 pmMartha says:
Ken Arromdee, don’t strain so much. I said that it was easy to discuss these topics at an age-appropriate level, and it is. When my kids ask about such things as affirmative action, it’s usually because they’ve heard the term somewhere and want to know what it means. e.g., my 6th grader heard another kid call Obama an “affirmative action” president. But it’s not hard to think of ways in which a school might teach that it exists . . . e.g., in history class.
Anatid, you’re right, of course.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:36 pmGuy says:
Ken,
Well, to further elaborate, discussion of social issues is perfectly appropriate, and I even think that the teacher can express their own opinions, as long as the teacher is careful to qualify them as such. Teachers might not always stick to this rule, but by and large they try to in my experience, and I seriously doubt there is any public school that has an official policy of teaching kids to support gay marriage. The bond issues is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I would imagine the way it usually works is, in a civics/social studies class, the teacher goes over the items on the ballot, or maybe breaks the class up into groups to report on each ballot issue, maybe asking the students to lay out the pros and cons of each side, have the students discuss them, and encourage civil debate. This is all perfectly appropriate, and I don’t see any good reason to declare gays to be a taboo topic beyond discussion in the context of a class like this, and anti-bullying measures are also appropriate. Keep in mind that if a class has Heather has two Mommies read to them, some of the kids might actually have gay parents, and would appreciate the acknowledgment of the existence of families like theirs. Furthermore, some of the kids might themselves be gay, and treating homosexuality as a taboo topic will only increase the alienation and psychological trauma these kids will experience as they become aware of their sexuality.
Zuch,
Maybe I was glib, I didn’t mean to suggest both sides should necessarily be presented with equal weight, rather the relative proportions should be noted, and the evidence supporting the positions should be mentioned and given the amount of focus appropriate for their relative strength. In the case of evolution versus creationism, creationism should only be mentioned as far as saying “Some people’s religious beliefs contradict evolution. That’s fine, but my job is to teach you the science”. My understanding of the global warming debate is that those who disbelieve in human-caused global warming are a minority, but not quite laughed out of the scientific community.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:45 pmzuch says:
I was trying to mirror the previous commenter’s formulation WRT AGW.
Cheers,
Quote
November 14, 2009, 12:35 amzuch says:
The reason some “scientists” say there’s no AGW is because they have a vested or personal interest in burning carbon fuels like there’s no tomorrow.
Cheers,
Quote
November 14, 2009, 12:37 amMark Buehner says:
Objection. Foundation?
Quote
November 14, 2009, 3:58 pmMark Buehner says:
...
link
That monster.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 4:03 pmHans Bader says:
What a sad and unfortunate veto.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 4:24 pmOren says:
This makes it impossible to teach any literature or history. Do we have to teach the American Revolution with the qualifier “but we don’t necessarily support the right of the colonists to engage in treason against their sovereign King”?
Quote
November 14, 2009, 6:15 pmMartha says:
I dunno, do you know anyone for whom that isn’t a true statement? :) Seems to me that history teaches about what happened–not whether we approve. Lit study, too, involves facts more than values: learning about literary movements, techniques, famous authors/texts, and so on. Maybe you don’t personally “like” Hawthorne but historically he is an important author, so you read his stuff anyway and you learn to recognize the strategies he uses & the aspects of his work that critics have admired.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 9:37 pmMartha says:
. . . for whom that IS a true comment . . .
Quote
November 14, 2009, 9:52 pmzuch says:
Is the General Assembly delegating its legislative authority nowadays? I though the legislature was elected to write laws, not to conduct polls.
Cheers,
Quote
November 15, 2009, 1:28 amRandy says:
Mark: “That monster.”
A step in the right direction, and one that should be applauded. However, DP is a far cry from civil unions, not to say marriage, in terms of benefits it allows gay couples, or their children, both of which he continues to resist.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 2:29 pmGuy says:
This is hardly commendable, he’s saying it should be put on a referendum, which is a common ploy in many political areas to deny any responsibility for his own positions. He’s trying to pander to both sides at once without having to take a principled stand in either direction, meanwhile he’ll continue to veto anything even remotely pro-gay that comes out of the legislature.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:01 amegd says:
The “kid” (22 years old) was killed because he had money and drugs. The guys who killed him wanted the money and drugs. The “kid” refused to give up the money and drugs (although he may have proposed trading sexual favors for the money and drugs).
Yes, he was gay. Yes, he was killed. But that doesn’t mean he was killed because he was gay.
Oh, and I don’t support the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act.” All murderers, regardless of the status of their victims, should receive the death penalty.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 3:31 pm