filed under Activism | Civil Rights | Equal rights | Politics | marriage equality
Vigil And Funeral Procession Against The Veto
10:40AM ON
11/17/2009
BY
Joe Roch
If you’re equally pissed-off about Governor Carcieri’s deplorable, inhumane veto of the domestic partners’ funeral rights bill last week, come out and show it this Thursday, November 19th. From the Facebook invite:
On Tuesday November 10, 2009 Governor Donald Carcieri killed a bill that would allow non-married couples the right to plan the funerals of their deceased partners. Please join in solidarity for a vigil and funeral procession this Thursday, November 19th @ 7:30pm sharp, along the Statehouse sidewalk facing the Providence Place Mall. Please wear black if you are able.
Come. Tell your friends. Tell your friends’ friends. Just don’t let the governor get away with being a complete and utter plonker.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:53PM
Lily Cher Says:
What is the Facebook link to the vigil?
Reply
November 17th, 2009 at 1:18PM
Rob Says:
The governer was right to veto this bill. It was nothing more than a ploy to normalize same-sex relationships in order to pave the way to so-called same-sex marriage.
Reply
wess replied:
November 18th, 2009 at 12:40PM
Gosh darn it, Rob, you’re on to us all right. It was all a cheap ploy.
Say, I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t you come down tomorrow night and waggle your finger at us in person? It’ll be so much more impressive on TV than in some backwater blog.
Reply
November 17th, 2009 at 1:20PM
Joe Roch Says:
Rob,
Tell that to the guy who couldn’t even print an obit for his partner of 17 years.
Yours,
Joe
Reply
Rob replied:
November 18th, 2009 at 1:08PM
I’m very sorry that the guy couldn’t plan a funeral or even print an obit for his deceased partner. It’s a very sad situation. However, if that’s all it’s about, why did he accompany the queer action folks at their meeting with the governor? Their main purpose seems to be getting so-called same-sex marriage in RI.
Reply
November 17th, 2009 at 1:37PM
Joe Roch Says:
Lily - if you want to friend request me on FB, I can pass it on to you.
Reply
November 17th, 2009 at 5:25PM
Nomi Says:
Have you seen the post on Pharyngula (sp?) about this?
I’m praying for the gov., not that I believe in hell, but that he needs prayers.
I’ll be at that vigil.
Reply
November 17th, 2009 at 5:29PM
Joe Roch Says:
Thanks Nomi - and make sure to spread the word as much as you can!!
Reply
November 18th, 2009 at 11:55AM
Not About The Buildings Prize Reading Tomorrow | Providence Daily Dose Says:
[...] I can’t believe we’re competing with an anti-Carcieri vigil! [...]
November 18th, 2009 at 1:32PM
Joe Roch Says:
Rob,
The gentleman we’re discussing (his name is Mark) is the reason the bill was introduced. He accompanied Queer Action so that the governor could hear a first-hand account of his horrendous experience, which you can read about here: http://www.projo.com/news/content/GOLDBERG_FUNERAL_RIGHTS_11-15-09_S4GE9HC_v189.3988db7.html
If you think the current laws are fair and just…well, then you’re more than entitled to your opinion. We’re gathering tomorrow night to tell the governor that we think the laws are not just, and that his words and actions are not acceptable.
Coincidentally, Mark will be in attendance tomorrow. Why don’t you come, and tell him (and me, and my partner, and our friends) that we’re not entitled to the same rights as you.
Best,
Joe
Reply
November 19th, 2009 at 11:34AM
Rob Says:
You all have the EXACT same rights as me and every other American citizen. Marks experience was an isolated incident that deserves answers. However, rewriting the laws based on that is crazy, almost as crazy as redefining marriage as anything other than the union of one man and one woman.
Reply
wess replied:
November 19th, 2009 at 4:31PM
Sometime before, I recklessly suggested you might be of less than average intelligence.
It now occurs to me that you might just be barking mad. As in, not right in the head.
“EXACT same rights”? Why on earth would anyone vie for rights they already have? That makes no sense. “Isolated incident”? Yet you’ve already been informed (since you won’t make any effort of your own to find things out, beyond hanging out in less than entirely reputable blogs) that this is not an isolated incident, right here on this blog. Perhaps you forgot, or reject it as true, in which case just say so. But this assertion claims acceptance of the facts of Mark’s case, alongside either ignorance or rejection of others’ similar stories. Granted, others’ accounts are not identical, but no two people’s stories ever are. The fact that a cop pulls over a red car doesn’t make it an ‘isolated incident’ just because the last car was blue and the next one was green. Alternatively, you may simply not understand what this term means.
You also seem to reject the well-documented history that marriage has not always been what it is right now in history in this country. Even NOM uses the somewhat awkward expression, “marriage as we know it,” because NOM has a strong legal foundation (which is a polite way of saying it’s run by lawyers), and they know, as anyone who studies the history of law does, that the legal and cultural meaning of marriage has had many different definitions in history, including in this still-young nation of ours. Entire books have been written about this, and entire courses are taught about it. Yet you simply ignore it, or arbitrarily choose to ignore it.
In a larger scope, you seem to share a larger common rejection of the reality of change, also a common attitude associated with ignorance of history. The sense that anything has “always” been any particular way is patently mistaken. Change is the only constant in all of human history. There is always fear and resistance to change. This is a normal human responce. But it is not rational. Change is the natural order of things. Constancy does exist at times, but is almost always a symptom of stagnation, and never lasts. To presume constancy is to admit ignorance. To reject change is to reject humanity itself.
There are only a few logical explanations of your conduct to date in this blog:
- You are trolling for the fun of it. (But very badly.)
- You are bigoted, but blind to it, and make increasingly ludicrous attempts to rationalise your sensibilities.
- You consider yourself “conservative” and “traditional” in mindset, however you define that, and come here to lay on with people you consider your idealogical rivals. Yet you arrive at a battle of wits pathetically underarmed.
- You hope to change someone’s mind. Even ignoring the chances of that in this particular blog, your forensics are shockingly poor.
- You’re staggeringly ignorant.
- You’re not very bright.
- You’re not well.
You may well interpret this as an insult. But it’s no insult to identify the truth. It’s not my intent to insult you, and you should not feel insulted. You should educate yourself, and maybe seek professional counselling.
Reply
November 19th, 2009 at 1:57PM
Joe Roch Says:
Rob,
Sadly, we do not come close to have exactly the same rights. According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
Joe
Reply
November 19th, 2009 at 1:58PM
Joe Roch Says:
Furthermore - the reason why some of us push for same-sex marriage as opposed to domestic partnerships is because the latter would in no way guarantee the same rights (as listed about) as marriage.
Reply
November 19th, 2009 at 5:05PM
Darcy Says:
Joe,
Wonderful intelligent responses.
Rob,
It’s hard to imagine how you can believe that gay partners (or in this case, gay and straight domestic partners) have the same rights. You are absolutely entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to be factually incorrect.
Please explain to me how this scenario appears equal in your eyes:I been with my partner for 7+ years. We’d be married if it were legal. A straight couple in my situation would be legally married and if one of them died, the partner would be allowed to make their loved one’s funeral arrangements. If my girlfriend were to die, her parents would be in charge of her funeral arrangements and I’d simply be a guest. Is this the same thing to you?
Reply
November 19th, 2009 at 5:41PM
RI Gov Carcieri VETOED Equal Rights for Burial/Funeral Arrangements | the list of now Says:
[...] of us in RI who are furious, are attending a Vigil and Funeral Procession Against the Veto happening at tonight at the Statehouse. I’ve been trying to spread the word this week [...]
November 20th, 2009 at 12:53PM
Rob Says:
You can tell me that a duck is a chicken, you can even legislate it, but a duck is still a duck, not a chicken. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Two men living together, no matter how long or how much they care for each other, is still just two men living together. It is not marriage. Even if laws are passed saying that two men can get married to one another, it is not marriage. Laws don’t negate truth. So once again, the good people among us who struggle with same-sex attraction have the EXACT same rights as the rest of us. They are asking for SPECIAL rights, namely to redefine the definition of marriage.
Reply
wess replied:
November 20th, 2009 at 5:11PM
Would I be incorrect in guessing that you’re single?
Reply
November 20th, 2009 at 12:58PM
Joe Roch Says:
Thank you, Rob, for that crash course in how not to make an articulate, intelligent, informed argument.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:54PM
Rob Says:
No Wess, I am not single. I’m getting married next year.
Your welcome Joe.
Reply
Wesli Dymoke replied:
November 24th, 2009 at 10:31PM
My condolences.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:57PM
Joe Roch Says:
Rob,
When guests thank you for a lovely wedding, it’s “you’RE welcome” and not “your welcome”.
But thanks for helping me prove another point.
Joe
Reply
November 24th, 2009 at 12:18PM
Nomi Says:
I have a hard time (near impossible) understanding the objections to a white person marrying a black person, and yet in my lifetime it was illegal.
Once a Rhode Islander told me that his family disowned him, when he married a woman of a different ethnicity. He was Italian; she was French; both were Catholic. I think her family disowned the couple, too. I may be confusing the genders and maybe one family was Irish…
When there are so many illnesses, natural disasters and other difficulties in our fragile lives, why spend so much effort preventing two people in love from formally uniting?
Reply