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 legislation, sponsored by Sen. Rhoda Perry and state Rep. David Segal, would have added “domestic partners” to the list of people legally authorized to make funeral, cremation or burial arrangements for their deceased partners. Heterosexual married couples already have these rights.

The Providence Journal reported that the bill was proposed after one man was unable to retrieve the body of his late partner from the state medical examiner for weeks because they weren’t married or next-of-kin.

Gov Carcieri’s veto message, said:

“This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue.

“If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide.”

The bill defined a domestic partner as someone who was in an “exclusive, intimate and committed relationship” with the deceased person and had lived with them for at least a year. The bill also said the couple had to be financially “interdependent” by joint mortgage, shared credit card or domestic partnership contract.

Gov. Carcieri said the bill would allow the decisions of a “partner” of a year to take precedence over “traditional family members.” He said a “one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals.”

Rep. Segal said Carcieri took his opposition to same-sex marriage too far. He and Sen. Perry plan to override the veto.

Segal also said, “‘I think the man is heartless and this has become a bad joke that has carried on for far too long.”

Governor Carcieri also vetoed 22 other bills on Tuesday.

None of the bills legalizing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island advanced to a floor vote this session, continuing a trend begun in 1997.

The lack of Statehouse action on gay unions means that Rhode Island is unlikely to allow gay marriage anytime soon, despite decisions this year by lawmakers in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont joined Connecticut and Massachusetts in legalizing gay marriage.

“I was hoping the momentum that was going around New England and the support we had in the House would get enough representatives to ask for it,” said Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, who is gay and sponsored same-sex marriage legislation. He and his partner wed in Canada.

Equally disappointed were gay marriage opponents, who wanted voters to be able to decide whether the state constitution should be changed to ban gay marriage.

“I think that if you put it to the voters on a statewide basis, gay marriage would fail,” said Rep. Jon Brien, D-Woonsocket.

A poll released by Brown University last month showed 60 percent of registered Rhode Island voters would support a law allowing gay couples to marry, and 75 would support a law allowing civil unions. Still, Rhode Island is the most heavily Roman Catholic state in the country. Catholic leaders are deeply opposed to same-sex unions and several key state officeholders are Catholic.

Murphy and Paiva-Weed, both Democrats and Catholics, oppose same-sex marriage, while Republican Gov. Don Carcieri, also a Catholic, would be nearly certain to veto gay marriage legislation should it arrive on his desk.

State lawmakers normally end their session at the end of June. But after a marathon week of late-night deal making, House Speaker William Murphy, D-West Warwick, decided that House lawmakers will return at least one day in July and perhaps in the fall to address remaining bills and monitor the state’s bleak finances. The state Senate planned to meet this week, although an exact day was not immediately set.

A bill that would allow gay men and women to make funeral arrangements for their late partners is pending.

Ferri views that funeral planning bill as a small step forward.

“It’s a recognition of our relationships,” Ferri said. “It’s a recognition that we do need protection.”

A Brown University poll showed 60 percent of registered voters in the state said they would support a law allowing gay couples to marry, and 75 percent said they would support a law allowing civil unions. Thirty-one percent said they would oppose a gay marriage law.

“Even if they’re not hearing constantly from constituents or people they work with about what they feel about marriage equality, it clearly gives the decision-makers something to look at when supporting marriage equality,” said Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island.

While 77 percent of Democrats polled said they would support gay marriage, only 28 percent of Republicans shared that view.

Results also showed younger voters more heavily favored gay marriage. Eighty-seven percent of voters ages 18-29 supported it, as opposed to 32 percent of voters 70 and older.

The poll was conducted May 18-20 with a random sample of 593 registered voters statewide. Overall, the margin of error was plus or minus about 4 percentage points.

Christopher Plante, executive director for the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage, pointed out that polls showed California voters supported same-sex marriage, which they banned in the November election.

“The same-sex marriage movement is about a small minority of people trying to radically alter the historic definition of marriage to suit their lifestyle,” Plante said in a statement.

The push to legalize gay marriage has encountered difficulty in Rhode Island. Almost half of Rhode Islanders identify themselves as Roman Catholic, a larger percentage than any other state, according to a recent survey by Trinity College in Connecticut. Religious leaders have continued to voice opposition to gay marriage.

“Given the intense lobbying efforts by proponents of gay marriage, no one should be surprised by the findings of this particular poll,” the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence said in a written statement. “While there is clearly a lot of work to be done, we will renew our efforts to explain the dignity of marriage as designed by God.”

Bills legalizing gay marriage have been introduced in the Statehouse every year since 1997, but none has been approved by a legislative committee. House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, both Democrats and Catholics, oppose gay marriage, and Republican Gov. Don Carcieri – another Catholic – would likely veto such a measure.

This year, bills are in committee in both the House and Senate, with the House Judiciary Committee recommending the measure be held for further study, effectively killing the bill.

Still, Rep. Frank Ferri, a Warwick Democrat and former chair of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said the poll shows officials the growing support for gay marriage in Rhode Island.

“Gay marriage is just like any other marriage and the more we talk about it and the more we read about it just reinforces that,” Ferri said.

Four of the other five New England states have legalized gay marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine. New Hampshire lawmakers are working to pass a gay marriage bill that will be signed by the governor.

A string of sudden successes for gay marriage advocates has left Rhode Island a political outlier. Maine became the fourth state in New England to legalize same-sex unions last Wednesday, while New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is now deciding whether to sign similar legislation.

Vermont lawmakers established gay marriage last month, following a path already set by courts in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Yet the movement has stalled in Rhode Island, perhaps even lost ground, after a stalemate at the Statehouse, a loss in the state’s top court and continued opposition from religious leaders.

“I do not hear voices raised, voices stating absolutely that this just cannot do,” said Cassandra Ormiston, 62, a lesbian who could not get divorced in Rhode Island after she and her partner married in Massachusetts. “It is not enough to be patient.”

Religion remains among the biggest hurdles. A recent survey by Trinity College in Connecticut showed 46 percent of Rhode Islanders identify themselves as Roman Catholic, a larger percentage than any other state.

Given its size, the church carries political clout. On the last Inauguration Day, every statewide elected official began the morning with a special Mass at the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul, celebrated by Bishop Thomas Tobin.

Tobin does not hesitate to tussle with politicians, especially on gay marriage. He calls gay unions a perversion of natural law and a violation of an institution that Catholics believe was created by God.

Two years ago, he harshly criticized Attorney General Patrick Lynch, a Catholic, for advising state agencies to recognize the marriages of gay couples wed outside Rhode Island.

“We don’t see it as a civil rights issue,” Tobin said in a recent interview, “because there’s never a right to do something that’s morally wrong.”

Bills legalizing gay marriage have been introduced in the Statehouse every year since 1997. None has ever been approved by a legislative committee, required before those bills could be aired on the full floor.

House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, both Democrats and Catholics, oppose gay marriage.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Rhoda Perry, a Democrat from Providence, does not expect to get a vote this year. She believes legislative leaders are trying to shield fellow lawmakers from a fractious debate.

“You know your numbers,” Perry said. “So why make anyone even have to vote on something that at least some of their constituents will be upset about if you already know the votes aren’t there.”

Even if a simple majority of lawmakers backed Perry’s bill, Republican Gov. Don Carcieri – another Catholic – would almost certainly veto it. Overriding a veto requires the support of 60 percent of lawmakers in each chamber.

Courts legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut, but that avenue seems unlikely in Rhode Island.

In 2007, Rhode Island’s Supreme Court refused to let Ormiston divorce her wife, Margaret Chambers. The couple lived in Rhode Island but married across the border in Massachusetts.

In its ruling, the court said it could not grant a divorce because Rhode Island lawmakers have never recognized marriage as anything but a union between a man and a woman.

Frustrated with the slow pace in Rhode Island, Ormiston is parting ways with Marriage Equality Rhode Island, which has locally advocated for gay marriage, and starting a new organization, called Equality Rising, to push harder.

“It is not enough to wait until we no longer have opposition,” she said.

It might become slightly easier for those looking to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island when Carcieri finishes his second and final term as governor in January 2011. Potential candidates including former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, an independent, and Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts and Attorney General Patrick Lynch, both Democrats, support gay marriage.

General Treasurer Frank Caprio, also a Democrat, said he would not veto a gay marriage bill if he were elected governor.

New York

Forty years of Republican rule in the New York state Senate came to an end in November with Democrats now in control of both houses in the Legislature and the governor’s mansion.

But whether that is enough to see a marriage equality bill enacted in the Empire State remains unknown.

A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in New York passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly last year, but Republicans who then controlled the Senate refused to consider the legislation.

At least three Democratic Senators say that when the bill is reintroduced this year, they will vote against it. That could be enough to defeat the bill.

In 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

Gov. David Paterson has said he would sign the measure if it passes.

Last year, Paterson issued an executive order recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in areas where they are legal. That has resulted in a large number of gay and lesbian couples going to Connecticut, Massachusetts or Canada to wed and then returning to New York to have the marriages recognized.

New Jersey

New Jersey also could see passage of equal marriage legislation.

In 2006, the state Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples must have all the rights of marriage.

The Court gave the New Jersey State Legislature 180 days to act on the decision to grant same-sex couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by different-sex married couples, but left it up to the legislators to decide whether to call it marriage or civil unions.

The legislature opted for civil unions. But that, said civil rights groups, amounted to a situation that was separate but equal.

A commission established by the state to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey agreed with that argument.

The commission held three public hearings last year at which the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions who said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers and others.

For instance, the commission found that many companies in the state that are self-insured – and therefore are regulated by federal, rather than state, law – refuse to provide health insurance to the partners of their employees.

A bill to allow for same-sex marriage was filed in the last session of the New Jersey legislature but gained little support in an election year from either House or Senate leaders. With a new legislature the bill is expected to be refiled and Garden State Equality believes it will have a strong chance of passage.

Gov. Jon Corzine has said he would sign a marriage bill if it were passed.

New Hampshire

There is a strong likelihood a gay marriage bill will pass in New Hampshire.

Rep. Jim Splaine, who sponsored the state’s civil unions law, said he believes there will be enough votes to pass his same-sex marriage bill.

But state Republicans not only oppose the marriage bill, they say they will bring in legislation that repeal the civil union law that went into effect last January.

Vermont

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000.

An 11-member commission was set up by the leaders of the Vermont House and Senate, both Democrats, to look into Vermont’s civil unions law to see if it is providing equality for gay and lesbian couples.

It submitted its report to the legislature last April, but made no recommendations on revising the law to allow for same-sex marriage.

The legislature is expected to consider a bill this year that would amend the state’s civil union law to provide for full marriage.

Gov. Jim Douglas has said he would veto the bill if it passes.

Two other states also are likely to have marriage equality bills: Rhode Island and Maryland.

A bill to allow same-sex marriage was filed in the Maryland legislature last year but failed to gain traction. It is expected to be refiled in the new session but its fate is unknown. Legislation is also expected in Rhode Island.

Other States

In the state of Washington, lawmakers this year will consider adding new rights and obligations to the 2007 Domestic Partner law. It already covers areas such as hospital visitation rights among the 200 rights offered to same-sex couples and opposite-sex coupled seniors.

Openly gay Sen. Ed Murray (D-Seattle) says he thinks it still is too early to push for full marriage rights but believes that can be achieved in increments.

He is proposing adding pension and parenting rights and tax obligations. His draft already covers 1900 pages.

The New Mexico legislature will consider a domestic partner registry in the new session. It would allow any two people who live together in a committed and economically dependent relationship to register.

Both same and opposite-sex couples would be allowed to register with county clerks. The legislation would provide few direct benefits but could be used as proof of a relationship for benefits at private companies that have domestic partner insurance plans for their workers.

Several other states will take up bills expanding human rights laws to include members of the LGBT communities.

Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston were married in Massachusetts in 2004. 

Because Rhode Island has no specific law banning same-sex marriage gay and lesbian couples can go to Massachusetts to marry.

But those marriages are not recognized in Rhode Island.

In 2006 Chambers filed for divorce in Family Court in Providence, citing “irreconcilable differences”. 

Because of the lack of specific legislation on same-sex marriage Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court to determine if he has the authority to hear the case.

Last December in a split decision the high court ruled that laws governing Family Court do not include same-sex couples. (story)

Chambers then took the case to Superior Court.

On Wednesday Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Hurst dismissed the case saying only Family Court can hear cases involving divorce, and said that because of the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex divorce in Family court there was no point in taking the issue back to the justices.

“If same-sex marriage was not on the legislature’s mind in 1961 when it passed the Family Court Act, then same-sex marriage certainly wasn’t on its mind when the Superior Court was established over half a century earlier in 1905,” Hurst said in her written ruling.

But at the same time she suggested the high court left open the argument whether excluding same-sex couples from Family Court could be unconstitutional.

“The question yet to be asked is whether the Family Court Act, now having been interpreted by the Supreme Court, impermissibly deprives spouses in a same-sex marriage to equal protection of law on account of the coincidence in their gender,” Hurst’s ruling noted.

“Assuming the legislature and the executive branch continue to ignore this problem, the question will be whether the Family Court Act is unconstitutional for the reason that it violates state constitutional principles of equal protection.”

Chambers’ attorney has not said if he will take that argument back to the state Supreme Court.