A Governor’s Heartless Veto
In my work, I encounter seeds of homophobia in subtle and insidious ways all the time. But I have to admit to being floored by the actions of Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri last week. On November 10, Gov. Carcieri vetoed a bill that would have provided same-sex couples a critical, discrete protection in a time of complete vulnerability and tragedy. The bill would have allowed a surviving same-sex partner the ability to claim the remains of his or her partner, and decide how he or she will be laid to rest. To be eligible to do this, the surviving partner would have to demonstrate that their relationship met the definition of “domestic partnership” that has been a part of Rhode Island law for over eight years.
The Governor’s veto message made three points: The first two points take issue with the established domestic partnership criteria, including the one year durational requirement, are insufficient “to establish a serious, lasting bond between two (2) individuals to supplant the surviving individual over traditional family members.” He deems it “uncertain” how one would prove that the relationship has been in place for one year in light of the lack of any recognized legal status for same-sex couples. The third point was that this bill is part of the “disturbing trend … of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage,” suggesting that if the General Assembly wants to address domestic partnership, they should put the issue on the ballot.
I hardly knew where to begin in processing the cruelty, arrogance, and ignorance of Carcieri’s veto, let alone the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his discussion of the criteria themselves. We’ve known from the time he took office that Carcieri is no supporter of equality for the LGBT community. He has stated plainly that he would veto a marriage equality bill, or even a civil union bill, and he did veto the bills that extended pension benefits to the surviving partners of public employees and granted a one-time death benefit to the surviving partners of emergency workers killed in the line of duty. Fortunately, those vetoes were overridden. But this veto really takes the cake. Of late, Carcieri has cast his lot with the far right on these issues, publicly joining the National Organization for Marriage at a press conference, and headlining the fundraiser for the Massachusetts Family Institute. Clearly his allies are rubbing off.
Carcieri’s veto was simply heartless. It’s not like this issue arose before the General Assembly in a vacuum. Rep. David Segal and Sen. Rhoda Perry introduced this bill after one of their constituents, Mark Goldberg, experienced the tragic loss of his partner of 17 years, Ron Hanby, and was unable to claim his body or make arrangements for him to be laid to rest. Mark’s agony was prolonged for weeks and months because he could not be considered next of kin despite having built a life with Ron. It shouldn’t be easy for opponents of equality to reject a protection like this for surviving partners even when it is discussed in the abstract, but to do so when the discussion around it has been so publicly rooted in Mark’s tragedy is plainly callous. I applaud Rep. Segal, and Rep. Frank Ferri, Democratic party chair Bill Lynch, and Attorney General Patrick Lynch for calling out the inhumanity of Carcieri’s veto.
The refusal to extend even this minimal protection also shows the disingenuousness of the claims on the other side that their complaint is just about the word “marriage.” “Go ahead and extend the benefits,” they say, “just don’t call it marriage.” Far from the full panoply of rights and obligations that marriage provides, this was one measly protection that would have provided a measure of security and comfort in a time of tragedy, and Carcieri couldn’t allow it because it “ero[des] the principles surrounding traditional marriage.”
And then there’s Carcieri’s complaint about the criteria themselves. These criteria have been a part of Rhode Island law since 2001, when the General Assembly extended health benefits to the domestic partners of state employees. This bill did not make up a new standard out of whole cloth. It used the same one that has been used in at least four other contexts in the Rhode Island General Laws. Carcieri’s sudden complaint that the one-year duration for the relationship is insufficient for establishing a sufficiently close relationship is ridiculous. A different-sex couple can meet, get married two weeks later, and have the automatic right to make these determinations if one of them should happen to die the day after the wedding.
Furthermore, Carcieri misunderstands how the criteria work. In fact, they require a surviving partner to show that the couple had lived together for a year and that they were financially interdependent during that time through a variety of forms of proof. The criteria are intended to demonstrate that the couple has built a life together.
Perversely, Carcieri is right about one thing in this regard. These criteria are awkward and inapt for describing the love and commitment of Rhode Island’s same-sex couples. But the answer to that dilemma is to end the exclusion of those same-sex couples from the status that does accurately respect the love and commitment of two adults who have formed a family – marriage.
I sincerely hope the General Assembly overrides this veto when they have the opportunity to do so in January. In the meantime, I would strongly encourage folks to take all available steps to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening to you. The law allows any person to name another as his or her “funeral planning agent” with sole authority to make arrangements and decisions about funeral services, and burial or disposition of remains, including cremation.
The other good news is that we won’t have to live with Carcieri a whole lot longer. I never imagined I’d be quite the champion of term limits that I am this week. January 2011 cannot come soon enough.