Less than a week after same-sex marriage was legalized in New York, the Rhode Island State Senate on Wednesday evening approved a bill allowing not marriage, but civil unions for gay couples, despite fierce opposition from gay rights advocates who called the legislation discriminatory.
The bill, which already passed in the state’s House of Representatives and which the governor said he was likely to sign, grants gay and lesbian couples most of the rights and benefits that Rhode Island provides married couples. It was offered as a compromise this spring after Gordon D. Fox, the openly gay speaker of the Democratic-controlled House, said he could not muster enough votes to pass a same-sex marriage bill.
Gay marriage advocates initially had high hopes for success in Rhode Island this year. The new governor, Lincoln D. Chafee, an independent, had championed their cause, and Mr. Fox, who became speaker last year, also appeared eager to get a marriage bill passed. The state’s two closest neighbors, Connecticut and Massachusetts, allow gay couples to marry, as do New Hampshire and Vermont.
But M. Teresa Paiva Weed, a Democrat and the State Senate president, opposes gay marriage, and Mr. Fox ultimately threw his support to civil unions, saying that was a more realistic goal.
Gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it allows religious organizations not to recognize the unions. For example, they say, a Catholic hospital could choose not to allow a lesbian to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and a Catholic university could deny family medical leave to gay employees.
“It’s a permission slip to ignore legal obligations,” said Karen L. Loewy, a lawyer at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, or GLAD.
Some opponents of same-sex marriage, including the Roman Catholic Church, are also against the civil unions bill. But Ms. Paiva Weed said she saw it as a worthy compromise.
“We have moved one step in the right direction toward ensuring that individuals receive equal rights and protections under the law,” Ms. Paiva Weed said before the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill on Wednesday afternoon. After the committee vote, Ms. Paiva Weed said she did not expect the Legislature to vote on a same-sex marriage bill next year, either.
Mr. Chafee told reporters on Wednesday that he would probably sign the bill even though he thought the religious protections were overly broad.
“We’re taking incremental steps forward, as other states have,” he said. “We want to get on the path to full equality, and this is a step on the path.”
The bill provides for hospital visitations, joint bank accounts and property transfers, among other rights. If Mr. Chafee signs it, Rhode Island will become the fifth state with a civil unions law; Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey already allow civil unions for gay couples.
New York passed its same-sex marriage law last week, joining the District of Columbia and five other states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. In Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont, civil union laws were steppingstones to gay marriage laws. But gay rights advocates increasingly say that civil unions are not an acceptable alternative.
“You’re never going to see us trumpet civil unions,” said Ray Sullivan, campaign director for Marriage Equality Rhode Island, the group that has led the push for same-sex marriage here. “We believe civil unions establish a second-class citizenry.”
Some advocates expressed disappointment in Mr. Chafee for not pushing harder for gay marriage. But they acknowledged that he was handicapped as a new governor with no party affiliation and thus less clout with the Democratic leaders of his Legislature than, say, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York.
In an interview, Mr. Chafee said Rhode Island’s large elderly and Catholic populations helped explain why same-sex marriage has not gained traction. “The church has been very active in calling the Legislature,” he said.
Christopher Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, said the bill had “opened the door for the courts of Rhode Island to redefine marriage without a vote of the people.”
“This is a disappointing and dangerous day,” Mr. Plante said.
Mr. Sullivan said his group had planned to remain neutral on the bill but came out against it after the “draconian” religious protections were added. Most civil union and gay marriage bills offer some religious protections — allowing a minister not to perform a gay marriage ceremony if he so chooses, for example — but the Rhode Island bill goes much further, Mr. Sullivan said.
“We support common-sense exemptions,” he said. “But no government should ever grant a religion or organization the autonomous authority to operate outside the boundaries of the law.”
Timothy Williams contributed reporting from New York.
This story, "," originally appeared in The New York Times.