PHB Mobile

News Tips? Calendar Info?


Public Calendar

Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net

Full size PHB Calendar


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas









The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



NOM-RI Pressures Legislators Not To Override Carcieri's Funeral Rights Veto

by: Louise

Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 12:00:00 PM EST


One wonders if there isn't someone out there gathering up all of these various state and national NOM "puzzle pieces" for the Feds to investigate...

Check out this latest email from NOM-RI to a state legislator:


31 December 2009

Re: Domestic Partners/Funeral Arrangements (SB 195/HB5294)

Dear Representative Ferri,

It has come to the understanding of The National Organization for Marriage - Rhode Island that the House has scheduled a vote to override the Governor's veto of SB 195 and HB 5294.  NOM - Rhode Island urges you to vote to sustain this veto.

NOM - Rhode Island recognizes that the situation that befell Mr. Goldberg was indeed tragic.  NOM - RI also trusts that the mistakes that led to this heartbreaking story will never be repeated.

However, the proposed legislation simply is not necessary to avoid such a repetition.

The right of any person, without regard to sexual preference or relationship to the decedent, to serve as a designated funeral-planning agent is already expressly guaranteed by Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. That statute only requires a simple notarized form naming an agent. By law, that agent's designation must be honored by medical examiners, funeral homes and presumably even the obituary page of The Providence Journal.

Rather than being compassionate, the legislation in question is actually an exploitation of Mr. Goldberg's tragedy by the homosexual-marriage activists in Rhode Island.  Despite their claims to the contrary, these bills serve simply as "Trojan Horses" for homosexual-marriage.  In California and Connecticut similar strategies were followed by the homosexual-marriage agenda in achieving court ordered decrees that those states fully recognize homosexual-marriage.  Those courts found that when rights of domestic partners, under either that nomenclature or as "civil-unions," were expanded beyond the already accepted realm of State and Municipal employees and their benefit arrangements, that the State must by extension fully recognize homosexual marriage.  Legal analysis to support this statement has been provided to Speaker of the House Murphy and is available from NOM - Rhode Island upon request.

As such, NOM - Rhode Island respectfully requests that you vote to sustain the Governor's veto both to avoid creating unnecessary law and to not move Rhode Island closer to recognizing homosexual-marriage.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at [401- redacted] over the holiday weekend.

With warm regards for a Happy New Year,

Christopher C. Plante

Executive Director

National Organization for Marriage - Rhode Island
10 Dorrence Street, Suite 809
Providence, Rhode Island 02903

*Related   Rhode Island Working To Reverse Carcieri Veto?

RI: Gov Carcieri thinking positively about domestic partnerships

Follow-up: Reactions To RI Gov Carcieri's Veto of DP Funeral Rights

RI Governor Donald Carcieri Vetoes DP Funeral Rights Bill

Louise :: NOM-RI Pressures Legislators Not To Override Carcieri's Funeral Rights Veto
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Oh, of course -- Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4!

NOM is perfectly right.  If all you need is one form to get this right, then what's the big deal?  

In fact, let's follow NOM's lead and make ALL of marriage's rights and benefits available to LGBT couples by simply having them fill out one form.  And let's call that form, what, I don't, maybe a... MARRIAGE LICENSE??  


Wrong on so many counts
A simple form will not suffice. If you know the story of Mr.Goldberg not only did it take 5 weeks for the release of his partners body, he could not cremate in RI because no funeral director would allow it to happen, form or no form.


actually
Actually, in this particular case, Goldberg did not have the form in question although he had every other possible piece of documentation/protection (including legal marriage in Connecticut, but also wills, power of attorney, etc.) He did not know that this form exists or else surely would have filled it out ahead of time since he did do all of the other paperwork. Even Gov. Dumbfuck did not know that this form existed or else he surely would have mentioned it in his veto message, just as he started crowing about it after he found out about it weeks later. The funeral directors industry in RI does honor these forms, as they were who worked to get them put into place over ten years ago in order to solve logistical problems that they had to deal with occasionally.

[ Parent ]
I can't speak for RI but
In general, too, when there is no protection under law, regardless of what forms you may or may not have, all it takes is one birth relative to completely override the expressed wishes of the deceased, even when a partner is there to say otherwise.

There are far too many cases of people completely ignoring powers of attorney, wills, living wills, and other legal paperwork, when a "next of kin" shows up and shoulders them aside. Of course, it's not an issue when the family is friendly and recognizes the same-sex partner, but it gets awful when they don't.


NOM's callousness shouldn't surprise me...
...but it still does in some small fashion.

The LGBT community's designated seats at the back of the bus must be preserved at any cost... no token of dignity is too small to be fought, derided, ridiculed.

NOM is essentially asking, why are those people whining and complaining about nothing? OK, so in one circumstance, one gay guy wasn't allowed on the bus for a few weeks, but we promise, as long has he's carrying the correct papers next time, it will never happen again! Most of all, they insist, the seating chart recognizes and celebrates traditions which transcend the millenia. So, any attempt to give those people even an honorary or temporary seat towards the front of the bus must be recognized as their determination to sit there any time, all the time, ending life as we've known it forever.

Incredible.


Does anyone remember the story of the Tennessean
fellow, Rusell Groff, who was partnered to Kevin Olive, in Baltimore, and the parents came all the way from TN to dig up the man and take him back to some Baptist plot in TN?  It was horrible.  Groff left a will and burial instructions and his parents sued his partner for his remains.  Mr. Olive finally won in court, but it left him penniless.  These were the religious bigots from Knoxville, TN who caused this.  I hate religion and its followers.http://stevecharing.blogspot.com/2007/05/gravesite-battle-financial-drain.html

Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4
How very clever of them to point out that there is a law already on the books:

The right of any person, without regard to sexual preference or relationship to the decedent, to serve as a designated funeral-planning agent is already expressly guaranteed by Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. That statute only requires a simple notarized form naming an agent. By law, that agent's designation must be honored by medical examiners, funeral homes and presumably even the obituary page of The Providence Journal.

Of course, they say all that's required is a simple notarized form.  Perhaps I'm a bit na├»ve, but how, exactly, does one obtain a notarized form signed by a deceased person to grant right of funeral arrangement to a particular person?  Oh, pish-posh, all same-sex couples should know to plan ahead and get notarized forms that cover each-and-every possible scenario they may encounter, right?  Just like straight people have to plan ahead . . . by getting married.

But what about the law they cite?  I guess they think no one will actually bother to check the particulars of that law. 5-33.1 covers funeral service contracts.  Subsection 4 is devoted to the handling of escrow accounts setup to pay for said funerals.  That's all well and good but has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.  In the "tragic situation" with Mr. Goldberg, the state refused to release his partner's body to him.

What good does it do that Mr. Goldberg could've (and perhaps already had) setup an escrow account to pay for his partner's funeral?  Apparently, NoM thinks Mr. Goldberg should've been satisfied with either cremating or burying an empty casket, whilst pretending his partner was inside.

Here's the text of the law itself: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/S...


they cited the wrong section
But what about the law they cite?  I guess they think no one will actually bother to check the particulars of that law. 5-33.1 covers funeral service contracts.  Subsection 4 is devoted to the handling of escrow accounts setup to pay for said funerals.  That's all well and good but has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

They cited the wrong section of law (I'm shocked, shocked that the geniuses at NOM would get something wrong.) The relevant sections are here (scroll down to section 2) and here (for the text of the form itself).


[ Parent ]
I got to learn ALL about this stuff on May 21 of last year
When my partner of 24+ years passed away.  

I was fortunate that the hospital treated me as family for the 9 days he was on life support.  There were no blood family members in the area for visitation, so I was treated as family by the hospital.  

However, in Florida, the papers authorizing the removal of life support have to be signed by a legally recognized spouse, or blood relative.  But this can only happen once the attending physician turns the decision over to family, and in Ron's situation, the doctor would not consider this until 7 days had passed (it was a brain hemorrhage).

Thankfully, his sister (who arrived on May 20) and I have always been very close, so it was joint decision between the two of us.  Yet she was the only one allowed to sign the paper - I was a witness.

Same deal with the authorization to cremate the remains and then turn them over to me.  Truthfully, however, since the hospital and mortuary that handled the remains are 75 miles from our house, I was glad I didn't have to make that drive one more time, due to my emotional and physical exhaustion.

I was lucky to have the support of his family as well as my own.  But I can see where many times this doesn't happen.


So sorry.
I've been with my husband only 6 years. So sorry for your loss, and so glad to hear his family was helpful.

[ Parent ]
Message FROM N O M
To the RI Legislature:

Even the right to dispose of a corpse is one right too many for Gays and Lesbians.

Love your votes;
NOM

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid


NOM just shot itself in the foot with this one
If all it takes is one little form, then obviously the "marriage" statutes pertaining to funeral arrangements are the unnecessary laws. After all, "married" heterosexuals can certainly fill out the same little form, can't they? And why should the taxpayers of the state be awarded special rights to heterosexual couples to avoid filling out this little form anyway?

Moreover, NOM would do well to remember the argument their friends made about the Schiavo marriage - something we should never hesitate to bring up. As much as they love to crow about the sanctity of marriage, the Right had no problem at all repeatedly demanding the state arbitrarily overturn the Schiavo marriage and the rights of the husband and wife in that marriage. So, inessence, NOM's own friends don't recognize any real marriage rights - perhaps it would be better to just dissolve all those pesky little marriage statutes that clog up the law books and just issue a single little form for all citizens regardless of marital status...


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox