Reports The Providence Journal:

“Maybe it’s something we should consider,” said Carcieri, after meeting privately Thursday for more than an hour in his office with a half-dozen members of Queer Action of Rhode Island, a group that in the immediate aftermath of his veto had labeled him “a bigot.”

Among those attending was Mark Goldberg, the Providence East Sider whose five-week battle to claim the body of his partner of 17 years from the state morgue, had sparked the vetoed legislation.

Citing as a possible model the “everything but marriage” referendum that won approval in the state of Washington earlier this month, Carcieri said: “I don’t know enough, yet. All I am saying is I understand the circumstances. 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.

“Let’s see if we can find a way to solve that without discreet [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up. I just don’t think that is the right way to deal with it,” he said.

The latest numbers are 51.1 percent approve domestic partnerships; 48.9 percent reject them.

Dave Ammons, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office, said the office is posting results at www.vote.wa.gov. But he added that they would have “probably no more than half of the expected total vote counted by the end of the evening.”

© 2009 Keen News Service

So with everything up in the air – and our readers steadily dropping off – James and I are going to call it a night.

But we’ll be back first thing tomorrow with whatever results have come in.

Weirdly, Washington has almost the exact same numbers at the moment – 53 percent against DP benefits, 47 for them. However, Washington is unlikely to be decided tonight – mail in ballots are expected to trickle in over the next week.

Rick Rosendall, a spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, was among the first to speak at the hearing in Washington, D.C. He told the D.C. Council that opponents of same-sex marriage “describe marriage equality activists as both a small minority and a Goliath that needs a David to slay us.”

“Bishop [Harry] Jackson,” a leading opponent of same-sex marriage in D.C., “talks as if gay people just arrived here from another planet,” said Rosendall. “In fact, our roots in this city run deep. We have helped build our communities, and we will defend them from the ministers of fear and intolerance.” That was around the start of the hearing, at 3:30.

Nearly 100 witnesses and more than seven hours later, Ernestine Copeland, an opponent of same-sex marriage, ended the first day of the hearing at 10:58, asking, “Who among you would allow your male dog to lie with a male dog?” She harangued the Council for deciding “to lead my people to hell” by supporting same-sex marriages which “will destroy our society.”

At the same time, the D.C. board of elections held its own hearing Monday — on whether to allow a proposed initiative to ban licensing of same-sex marriages in the city. According to the Washington Blade, a D.C. gay newspaper, about 100 people showed up for that hearing, most of them for the initiative. Earlier this year, the board rejected a ballot measure to overturn a new law that recognizes marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples by other states.

The same-sex marriage bill was sponsored by openly gay Councilmember David Catania, a former Republican, now Independent. It is co-sponsored by ten of the Council’s 14 members. The Council voted 12 to 1 in May to approve a law that gives legal recognition to marriage licenses obtained by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.

Phil Mendelson, chairman of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary and a co-sponsor of the bill, said the committee would “hear from the remaining 169 witnesses” during the second day of the two-day hearing, Monday, Nov. 2.

In Washington State, polling data give pro-gay forces a slight edge going into Tuesday’s vote, where Referendum Measure 71 will ask voters whether to approve or reject a newly passed domestic partnership law.

Though it is a matter being put to voters, most of the media attention has been bogged down in various court skirmishes over whether public documents — such as petitions which called for the referendum — can be withheld from the public and whether contributions can be limited.

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in briefly, voting 8 to 1 on October 20, to uphold a decision that blocks the release of the Referendum 71 petitions until a federal court can hold a trial on the issue. (Justice John Paul Stevens was the lone dissenter.)

The anti-gay group Protect Marriage Washington filed the original lawsuit, claiming the availability of the petitions publicly violated the First Amendment rights of the people who signed the petitions because the public disclosure chills their speech. In a separate federal lawsuit, the Family Policy Institute is challenging the state’s disclosure laws for contributions to the referendum campaign and limits on the size of those contributions.

Copyright 2009 Keen News Service

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma to block release of the petitions. Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.

Despite the appeals court ruling, the names weren’t immediately released because a state court order remained in effect. Janelle Guthrie, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Rob McKenna, said her office must now persuade a Thurston County judge to lift a temporary restraining order issued Wednesday forbidding the release of the petitions until the 9th Circuit could rule.

An assistant to the judge said he would not hear arguments until next week at the earliest.

Settle’s ruling last month stunned open-government activists.

“These petitions are not like a secret ballot, but amount to taking part in our legislative process, which is required to be open and accountable,” Secretary of State Sam Reed said.

Referendum 71 asks voters to approve or reject the so-called “everything but marriage” law, which grants registered domestic partners the same legal rights as married heterosexuals.

Conservative Christian groups that sponsored R-71 want to keep the signed petitions out of public view because they fear harassment from gay-rights supporters, some of whom have vowed to post the names of petition signers on the Internet.

The conservative groups lost a fight to keep the identities of their campaign donors secret.

Referendum sponsor Gary Randall of Protect Washington Families said he, another campaign organizer and their lawyers were considering whether to ask the 9th Circuit for a rehearing with more judges.

“There’s been calls and harassment and confrontation of people who donated who just thought they were participating in the democratic process,” he said. “I don’t think it’s right.”

The state attorney general’s office argued that there’s little evidence of threats or harassment amounting to more than a few rude phone calls.

In its brief order, the 9th Circuit panel said Settle used the wrong legal standard in granting the preliminary injunction that barred release of the petitions, and that the injunction therefore must be reversed.

The judges said they would later issue an opinion explaining their reasoning.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday in Pasadena, Calif., on whether signatures collected to repeal a domestic partnership law passed by the Washington Legislature during the last session should be released.

R-71 asks voters to approve or reject a new law expanding domestic partnerships for gay couples.

The referendum’s conservative sponsors want to keep their signed petitions out of public view, because they fear harassment from gay-rights supporters.

A federal judge in Tacoma granted the sponsors’ request in September. But the state is appealing, citing its open-government laws.

If you haven’t been following the campaign, you should. To my mind, our side has done a model job in framing the debate, telling our stories, responding quickly to opponents’ false messages, and perhaps most important, tailoring its own message to the local climate rather than simply going with stock arguments. Check out the ads at http://www.protectmaineequality.org/.

By contrast, the other side is essentially a re-run of the California Prop. 8 campaign (which is not surprising, as they’ve hired the same mastermind, Frank Schubert).

Of course, the other side won Prop. 8. Polls in Maine had us trailing until recently. But if ever there were a campaign that could come from behind, the Protect Maine Equality campaign is it. If you don’t believe me, compare their website to the opposition’s (http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/), and see if you don’t come away impressed and encouraged.

You are also likely to come away angry with the opposition. Good. Channel that anger into action by going back to http://www.protectmaineequality.org/ and making a sizeable donation.

Of all the things that irk me about the other side’s ads—and there are plenty—what struck me the most was Boston College law professor Scott Fitzgibbon’s claim that if marriage equality stands, “It will no longer be live and let live. Homosexual marriage will be the law whether Mainers like it or not.”

Let me repeat that, in case you didn’t get it the first time. Allow gays to marry, and “It will no longer be live and let live.”

If someone were awarding prizes for bizarre commentary in the marriage debate, this claim would be a formidable contender. The statement is so self-contradictory that it’s hard to discern its intended meaning.

But I’ll try. For marriage-equality opponents, “live and let live” must mean something like, “You are free to live as you please as long as I am free to live in a world in which you are not free to live as you please.” (Ouch. My brain hurts.)

If there’s anything worthwhile about the Fitzgibbon ad, it’s that it sharply exposes our opponents’ real intentions. They don’t merely want the freedom to marry whom they love, to worship as they choose, to raise their children as they see fit, and so on. They want the freedom to live in a world where those who differ don’t get the same freedom. In short, they want the exact opposite of a free society.

Whenever an educated person (like Fitzgibbon, who is a law professor) says something so bizarre and stupid, I assume that there must be something true somewhere in the neighborhood. If not the neighborhood, the county, perhaps.

In this case, the truth lies in the fact that freedom has a flip side, so to speak—namely, that other people may freely choose to do things that you don’t like.

Whether Maine retains marriage equality or not, our opponents are free to teach their children (and anyone else willing to listen) that same-sex relationships are wrong, that our marriages are not “real” marriages, that our families are not “real” families, and so on. They are free to do the same with respect to interfaith marriages, second marriages, whatever. You and I are free to tell them why they’re wrong.

What they are not free to do is to live in a world where everyone agrees with them. Nor are they free to live in a world where marriage between two men or two women is unthinkable, unspeakable, or legally impossible. Even if we lose Maine, we will still have marriage equality elsewhere.

And there’s the crux of the matter, and the point at which the debate really becomes a zero-sum game. Our opponents want a world where same-sex marriage is not even an option. In particular, they don’t want their kids—some of whom might be gay—to see it as an option.

By contrast, I want every gay and lesbian child to know that when they grow up, they deserve someone to have and to hold, for better or worse, ‘til death do they part.

I want them to know that when they fall in love and seek commitment, their love is real, and worthy, and good. I want them to know that marriage IS an option.

If you want that, too, support marriage equality in Maine and elsewhere.

******

P.S. And while you’re at it, don’t forget Washington State, where a nasty campaign is aimed at taking away domestic partnerships. See http://approvereferendum71.org/. If we lose Maine, gay Mainers get civil unions instead of marriage. If we lose Washington State, Washington gays end up with nothing.

******

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

His upcoming speaking appearances include:

October 13: Wisconsin Indianhead College
October 14: Western Tech College (WI)
October 15: Northcentral Technical College (WI)
October 20: Illinois State University

Check school websites for rooms and times.

The first couple to be issued the certificate – Lee Cagley and Larry Davis – shared tears and laughter and were congratulated by Secretary of State Ross Miller.

“This gives us the legal rights to act for each other’s benefit,” said Davis, a funeral home director. “It’s a wonderful privilege and we’re grateful.”

While Nevada’s constitution bans same-sex marriage, the domestic partnership law extends rights similar to those held by married couples – including community property and the right to seek financial support after a breakup – to cohabitating couples.

Nevada’s law permits, but doesn’t require, employers to extend insurance benefits to domestic partners.

The measure was vetoed by Gov. Jim Gibbons, but overridden by lawmakers in May. Couples, both gay and straight, were allowed to pre-register between Aug. 24 and Sept. 24 to receive their certificates on Oct. 1. Registration is ongoing, and about 750 couples had applied as of midday Thursday.

In southern Nevada, Joleen Toves, 28, and Lisa Villagomez, 25, of North Las Vegas said they considered their partnership a positive step in a personal and political struggle. Their legal status as partners will help them through medical emergencies and other issues married couples commonly face, Toves said.

“It’s such a great thing to be able to make decisions for each other and have each other on very important life-changing decisions,” Toves said, as she held a white envelope containing their certificate. “She’s going to be, of course, my next of kin.”

The couple were joined by Toves’ 4-year-old daughter Leilei.

Toves, a bank manager, said they considered getting married in California before an amendment banning gay marriage was passed last year. She said she believes the Nevada law passed in part because it also provides partnership rights for straight couples who choose not to marry.

Nevada joins 16 other states that have laws recognizing domestic arrangements outside of marriage.

State Sen. David Parks, who sponsored the Senate version of the bill, said Thursday was a big day for Nevada.

“It’s a day I didn’t think would come quite as quickly as it has,” the Las Vegas Democrat said at the Capitol.

Cagley, 58, and Davis, 48, said they’ve been in a relationship for three years, and held a commitment ceremony on Oct. 13, 2007, in Las Vegas. They also were married in California on Aug. 3, 2008, before voters there overturned gay marriage in the state.

An interior designer, Cagley oversaw renovations to the century-old Governor’s Mansion in the late 1990s, when Miller’s father was a Democratic governor and his mother, Sandy, was Nevada’s first lady.

Sandy Miller, who has known Cagley for many years, was on hand Thursday to share the couple’s happy day.

“I wish them much happiness,” she said.

About 27 percent of the estimated 564,743 total gay couples in the United States said they were in a relationship akin to “husband” and “wife,” according to the Census Bureau tally provided to The Associated Press. That’s compared with 91 percent of the 61.3 million total opposite-sex couples who reported being married.

A consultant to the Census Bureau estimated there were roughly 100,000 official same-sex weddings, civil unions and domestic partnerships in 2008.

Analysts said the disparities are probably a reflection of same-sex couples in committed relationships who would get married if they could in their states. The numbers are also an indicator of the count to come in the 2010 census, a tally that could stir a state-by-state fight over same-sex marriage, gay adoption and other legal rights.

Nationwide, about 56 percent of the 149,956 total same-sex marriages in the census survey last year were lesbian couples. Same-sex spouses were reported in every state; specific breakdowns weren’t immediately available.

“Even though in 2008 there were only a few states where you could get legally married, a large portion of same-sex couples either were married or chose to use that term,” said Gary Gates, a demographer at UCLA who is advising the Census Bureau.

Gates reviewed the number of marriage licenses issued and other factors to estimate the number of same-sex couples in legal relationships. During 2008, same-sex marriage was legal in California, Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut, while a handful of other states recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships. U.S. same-sex couples also can marry in Canada and other foreign countries.

Curtis Chin, 41, and Jeff Kim, 43, of Los Angeles, are among those who plan to report to the census that they are spouses. The two were planning a big wedding for 2009 but rushed into a private legal ceremony last fall when it became clear that California voters would soon ban same-sex marriages. Chin says he and Kim won’t feel like they are really married until they do a follow-up ceremony in front of family and friends but believe it’s important to get a full count.

“Gay couples are getting married or in committed relationships, and we are out here,” he said.

The numbers come as the Census Bureau prepares to make an official count of same-sex marriages, unions and partnerships for the first time in the 2010 head count, following the Obama administration’s decision to provide the numbers under pressure from gay-rights groups.

The figures provided to the AP also included higher, previously unreleased numbers for the three previous years.

In 2007, 341,000 out of 753,618 total same-sex couples reported being in a marriage relationship, even though only about 11,000 marriage licenses had been issued in the country. The numbers were even higher for 2005 and 2006; about 390,000 each year reported being in a same-sex marriage out of nearly 780,000 reported gay couples.

Martin O’Connell, the Census Bureau’s chief of the fertility and family statistics branch, attributed the higher numbers in previous years to a confusing survey layout and formatting errors. He said those problems were corrected for 2008.