Instead, those who like to see the state follow Massachusetts' lead say they'll continue to press for action in the General Assembly.

01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, May 19, 2004

BY TOM MOONEY
Journal Staff Writer

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch's opinion Monday that Rhode Island should honor legally obtained same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts signaled how the landmark ruling across the border promises to have ramifications here.

But, local gay-rights advocates say, don't expect to see the same kind of court fight waged in Rhode Island as was fought in Massachusetts.

The fight for same-sex marriage in Rhode Island is playing out on a different battlefield: the floor of the General Assembly.

Lynch's remarks Monday did inspire one gay couple from Warwick to attempt, unsuccessfully, to gain a marriage license at City Hall. Such denials formed the basis of the landmark gay-rights case in Massachusetts.

But the Warwick couple's actions weren't the start of any "concerted effort to set a foundation here for a court challenge," said Kate Monteiro, president of the Rhode Island Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.

Gay-rights advocates believe, at least for now, that legislative approval of same-sex marriage would be far more expedient and cheaper than going the court route.

"Going through the judicial system is not [so] simple," Monteiro said. "If you're going to mount this kind of case, you're talking about a large number of plaintiffs and an awful lot of legal time and money."

Further, a court case would all but end the important public debate about the issue, said Monteiro, since the legislature won't act on a pending court case. "One way or another, you have to have the public conversation."

Gay-rights advocates have made strides in recent years, said Monteiro, adding, "Every single one of our major victories has been done by going to the state legislature, by constituents making phone calls, by talking to [representatives] in the supermarket."

"We've thought about this for a very long time," she said. "I think there is a very strong sense in Rhode Island that if it can happen in Massachusetts, why can't it happen here? We've always been a leader on civil-rights issues. There's no reason for Massachusetts to get all the glory."

It appears clear, however, that legalizing gay marriage won't happen in this, an election year.

Rhode Island is one of a minority of states whose laws are ambiguous when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Lawmakers submitted bills this legislative session to legalize same-sex marriage, and to prohibit it by defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But all those proposals appear dead, lawmakers say.

"A lot of representatives and senators would rather stay away from controversial issues in an election year," said Rep. Edith H. Ajello, D-Providence, one of the sponsors of the proposal to legalize gay marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage are coming to terms with the same prognosis for their legislation.

Rep. Victor G. Moffitt, R-Coventry, introduced legislation that would allow only a man and a woman to marry.

"When you get the [House] majority leader and the speaker on opposite sides of an issue, it makes for a confrontation that probably is not going to be resolved in an election year," he said.

Moffitt said House Speaker William J. Murphy supports his legislation while House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox, who announced this session that he is gay, opposes it.

Despite the likely death for this year of the bill to legalize gay marriage, Ajello said she was pleased with the progress the legislation made.

In 2003, a bill to legalize gay marriage had five cosponsors in the House, she said. This year, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage, the legislation had 11 House sponsors.

"We found ourselves way ahead of the previous year because of what happened in Massachusetts," Ajello said. "And we had a number of other [representatives] say to us, 'I'm not going to sign it, but if it comes up to the floor, I'll vote for it.' "

Ajello predicts that there will be more support in the General Assembly as people see that "nothing horrible is going to happen" because of legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts.

"The more people see pictures and hear personal stories about couples who have been living in committed relationships for years finally being allowed to make their relationship legal, the more people will relax," she said.

Moffitt said that, one way or another, the ambiguity in Rhode Island law about marriage is confusing and needs to be addressed.

He pointed to Attorney General Lynch's interpretation Monday of the current law as an example.

Lynch said that, since Rhode Island has no specific law or policy on same-sex marriages, the common practice of comity, in which one state recognizes the laws of another, would likely apply: Rhode Island "would recognize any marriage validly performed in another state unless doing so would run contrary to the strong public policy of this state."

But Moffitt said, "Since there is no law on the books, the attorney general would have been safer to say he can't interpret what's not there."

Instead, Moffitt said, he essentially created a law.

"If you were a gay couple, wouldn't you believe the AG was supporting you in your efforts?" Moffitt said.

Lynch said yesterday that his remarks Monday "were not intended to serve as any sort of personal or private counsel" for any particular group.

"It is an unsettled area," said Lynch.

Answers won't come until all these questions are challenged legally, he said, "and challenges are likely to be unavoidable."