Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Smaller, less intrusive religion

Just who owns your life and when you die, who owns your remains? Do you get to decide or does someone else's religion get to decide?

Let's say the great love of your life dies. Let's say you live in Rhode Island and you want to retrieve the body from the morgue, take it to a funeral home and plan a funeral. That's fine as long as you're legally next of kin, otherwise you're eroding traditional heterosexual marriages says the Governor. I'm not even going to try to figure out the tortuous path down which the Republican Governor of Rhode Island, DonCarcieri trod to get to that conclusion. I'm just going to assume that there is no logical process at all and that it's just the same nasty religious authoritarianism that sparked the existence of the Rhode Island colony in the first place.

I'm going to venture to assert instead that blocking such a simple act of decency toward people who are in a committed relationship; allowing any of us the freedom to decide who is our family or not, who we want to give a responsibility to or not, prevents a danger to heterosexual relationships is ludicrous and offensively stupid and that he is only acting in the traditional theocratic role of forcing his religious doctrine up the collective arses of the Rhode Island citizens.

Don Carcieri vetoed a bill yesterday allowing same sex couples to plan the funerals of deceased partners, although Democrats may have the votes to override it. Carcieri believes that elected representatives do not have the power to write such legislation and there should be a direct ballot referendum instead. I wonder if this will erode the institution of our republican form of government as much as treating domestic partnerships outside of a Church approved relationship with equal protection under the law will erode my own marriage. So far my wife and I have survived such "disturbing trends" and are getting along just fine minding our own business.

6 comments:

  1. I've been married several times and I'd like to take this opportunity to assure Governor Carcieri that I am fully capable of 'eroding' my own marriage(s) without any help whatsover from my gay friends.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Carcieri believes that elected representatives do not have the power to write such legislation and there should be a direct ballot referendum instead.

    Cynical cowardice. Basic rights should not be given or taken by referendum. That's the principle behind the First and Second Amendments. We'd have very little personal freedom left if it could be taken away any time 51% of the voters decided it was a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Giving legitimacy to gay marriage would "erode" heterosexual marriage the same way as implementing universal health care would diminish its quality.

    It's a strange kind of thinking: we deserve it, but you don't. We are worthy, but you are not not. If you have the same rights as we do, ours will (somehow) mean/matter less.

    Rightwingers have never grasped the concept of equality.

    Or maybe they have -- and it scared them to death.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think many of them feel inferior and outnumbered ane are afraid of losing the traditions that kept them on top. I think that's true of Religious organizations who look around and see a world that is secularizing as prosperity increases. Neither prosperity or secularization serve them well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Intrusive you ask?

    Wait.

    It gets better.

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17619

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, boy. I guess refusing life support is now defined as suicide for which your invisible self will be damned to hell.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.