Comments on: Rhode Island Governor Says He’s Open To Domestic Partnership Law

By: Mike Airhart

Mike Airhart — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:00:04 +0000

Minor nitpick: Carcieri can’t run for re-election. He’s a lame-duck governor being pushed out by term limits.

The purpose of these recent actions is to improve his image on the Christian Right and conservative Catholic speaker circuit.

By: CB

CB — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:35:20 +0000

He’s running for re-election and doesn’t want to sound like a bigot. He’s done nothing for the gay community, but now that he’s in election mode, time to put out the lies. If he gets re-elected, I would bet that he gives the gay community the shaft. His opponent stated that he would’ve signed the funeral bill, now, suddenly Carcieri is trying to be a friend. FIGURE THE ODDS!

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:17:42 +0000

If gay people are allowed to bury their dead partners, then school children could be taught about homosexual funerals.

By: Burr

Burr — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:28:22 +0000

Either there’s some legal subtlety I don’t understand or this is just politicking.

Well if we are to take him at his word, he said the reason he vetoed the funeral arrangements measure was because he didn’t want to start a precedent of crafting law for each and every benefit.

However, in his veto he also suggested that any all-in-one remedy to disparities be voted on by the state at-large, which makes his new assertion of being open to legislation a headscratcher.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:34:54 +0000

In favor of domestic partnerships. Suuuuuuuure, Carcieri, who just vetoed a law to allow gay people to bury their partners.

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:32:30 +0000

I’m suspicious why someone who opposes funeral benefits would support all domestic partnership benefits, which would include those same funeral benefits. Either there’s some legal subtlety I don’t understand or this is just politicking.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:17:25 +0000

I’m suspicious. A careful review of Carcieri’s language reveals his agenda:

I understand the difficulties” that can arise for same-sex couples and others — such as widows living with widowers, and widows with other widows — outside the legal framework of a traditional marriage.

This is language that suggests to me that he will only support benefits that are non-partner related. And attempts by the legislature to enact domestic partner status that is based on defacto families will be suspect.

Only language similar to Hawaii’s “any two random people” from college roommates to brothers is likely to appeal to Carcieri. He’s too busy “protecting the definition of marriage” to ever allow an institution that would recognize same-sex couples as similar in any way to God-ordained, Church-blessed, REAL couples, ya know.

Or so I suspect. I will be delighted to be wrong.