01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, April 9, 2006

Arguments for legislation allowing same-sex marriage may be gaining in eloquence and urgency, but the bill's chances appear to be as elusive as ever.

Caught in the middle is House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, who is gay and supports the legislation but who declares, "It's a tough issue."

He says the bill is ensnared in a liberal-conservative tug of war and that the price of getting a House Judiciary Committee vote on marriage could be a House HEW vote on an anti-abortion bill, a measure he opposes. That bill would require women wanting an abortion to wait 24 hours and be subjected to counseling.

To make matters worse, Fox suggests that even if the marriage bill emerges from committee, it won't make it all the way through the legislative process but that if the abortion bill begins moving it probably will become law. He asks rhetorically, "Do I open the floodgates?"

He tells me, "It's a terrible position to be in, quite frankly."

Top gay-marriage advocates express outrage at the situation.

Jenn Steinfeld, co-chair of Marriage Equality RI, says she is "incredibly mad" that anyone would try to link two unrelated issues of "conscience."

She says she will not agree to any deals.

Steinfeld says she personally favors abortion rights but that some in the marriage coalition feel differently.

Frank Ferri, the other co-chair, says he doesn't like abortion but thinks it should be a matter of choice. He says that, if necessary, he'd be willing to see the abortion bill come out of committee if it means the marriage bill also moves. "I want a vote, and what has to happen has to happen," he says. But he is furious that there could be such a link. He says, "It's disgusting that they are playing politics with my life like this."

Most significantly, he says that if the marriage bill doesn't make any progress this year, advocates will "have to look at the courts." He says he and his partner, Tony Caparco, or some other couple, could try to force the issue. They could apply for a license, be refused, and then bring a legal challenge. (Or perhaps get a license and find it challenged by someone else).

In fact, Ferri and Caparco sought a license in Warwick in 2004. They say they got a runaround. They did not file suit, concluding that it was preferable to try to win the battle through legislation.

The Rev. Bernard Healey, Catholic diocesan lobbyist, also grumbles about the tug of war Fox describes, even though, in the end, it could work to the advantage of the church's positions in favor of the abortion bill and in opposition to the marriage measure. Still, Father Healey says, "I'm not about to horse trade on moral issues."

He adds, "If you're going to allow votes, allow votes. But I don't think we need to play the game, 'Well, if you get this..."'

He says his impression is that there may not be a vote on either bill.

The abortion bill, sponsored by Rep. Arthur Corvese, D-North Providence, is the so-called Women's Right to Know Act. A similar bill passed the Senate late in the 2005 session.

Fox says Corvese is not being a hardliner. Rather, Fox says, the linking sentiment is being expressed by other, rank and file members. He says the marriage bill is seen as liberal and that more conservative reps say that if that's going to get a vote then the abortion measure deserves one also.

Fox says he tells members that the two bills are "not related" but he keeps running into this "undercurrent."

Since House Speaker William Murphy, Senate President Joseph Montalbano and Governor Carcieri oppose gay weddings, no one has thought that the marriage bill would be enacted this year. But advocates have been adamant that they want a House Judiciary vote, which would bring the legislation out to the chamber floor and thus symbolize progress. Seven members of the 14-member committee tell me they support it, with another one leaning toward support. But that's no guarantee the committee will vote or that Murphy wouldn't try to sway its members.

On Wednesday, as House Judiciary was holding a hearing on the marriage bill, Rep. Art Handy, D-Cranston, the chief sponsor, told me has formally requested a vote but was "getting pushback from a lot of folks." Handy said he'd spoken with Fox: "He feels it's not the right year for it, we're not ready for it, it's not the right time for it. And I understand this perspective, but I respectfully disagree."

Fox told me Thursday that his comments to Handy reflected his assessment of House feeling. "I'm the majority leader..I move things for success...I want this bill to succeed. I don't think it will on the floor." He said he didn't know if it would be a "victory" to spring it from committee only to lose on the floor. He said it may be weeks before it's clear if there'll be a Judiciary vote.

Speaker Murphy refuses to discuss the situation with me other than to reiterate his opposition to gay marriage. "I respect the views and beliefs of other people, and it is my hope that my beliefs will be respected as well," he said in a statement that press aide Larry Berman handed me on Wednesday.

I'd love to see the marriage bill reach the House floor and put each rep on the spot.

I'd hate to see the abortion bill move, but I'm hardly about to say its advocates don't have a right to a vote.

The marriage situation cries out for clarity. The Superior Court in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, is to decide whether gay couples from Rhode Island can go to the Bay State to wed. The Supreme Judicial Court there recently said couples from states where such marriages are banned can't wed in Massachusetts but that the Rhode Island picture is hazy. The law here does not expressly forbid gay weddings. But provisions regarding licenses refer to a "female party" and a "male party" and "bride" and "groom." So proponents and opponents have assumed that gay couples can't wed.

Attorney General Patrick Lynch differs. When I asked him last week if he believes Rhode Island law prohibits or doesn't prohibit same-sex marriage, he replied, "I don't believe it prohibits it."

He said the license language is simply antiquated.

So why aren't gay couples getting married here? He shrugged, "I don't know."

Actually, the reason is that they have feared an adverse court ruling if they tried to press the matter and they have felt it wiser to go the legislative route.

But now you could have a situation in which no gay marriages take place in Rhode Island even as -- this could happen -- the courts in Massachusetts, like Lynch, say there's no prohibition.

Wouldn't that be odd?

At the Rhode Island State House on Wednesday, I spoke with Karen Loewy, staff attorney with Boston-based GLAD (Gay &Lesbian Advocates & Defenders), which is involved with the Massachusetts case. She told me that, in terms of securing the right to marry in Rhode Island, gays here have been smart to work the legislature instead of the courts. Over the years, she said, the lawmakers have bended toward "fairness," as seen, for example, in passage of the 1995 law barring discrimination in such areas as employment. "This is a state in which it makes all the sense in the world to make your case to the legislature," she said.

I'm not holding my breath.

Many of the faces at the State House on Wednesday were familiar, but I met some new folks: Ed Bonetti, his wife, Ann, and their 19-year-old daughter, Lauren, a Catholic family from Warwick. Their 20-year-old son, Greg, away in school in New York, is gay, and Ed came to offer pro-gay marriage testimony.

Ed told me it was an "honor" to be there. Yet he also resented the idea that, in regard to marriage, his daughter "has opportunities in front of her without asking" but, as for his son, "we have to fight for those rights."

Indeed, Lauren chimed in that she felt "guilty" and "frustrated" and "aggravated."

Also, she said she couldn't understand why the Catholic Church should have such influence on the issue. "This is dealing with the state," she said.

Now Ann, her mother, said, "Being gay is not a choice. I don't know how anyone can condemn someone when this is the way God made them. So if God made someone this way -- being gay -- how can someone turn around and say that they're substandard?"

Father Healey told me, "We're not treating anybody substandard...We believe everybody is made in God's image...We value and respect all human life."

But, "We want to defend an institution that we think needs to exist as it has always been defined for centuries by every major religion, by every major culture."

He said it is a matter of debate whether people choose to be gay or are born that way.

The bill would not require the church to perform marriages of anybody. But Father Healey said, "How many times has the church been exempted for things that are against its own moral teachings and then that exemption has been revoked?" He cited the recent flap in Massachusetts over adoptions.

I continue to be impressed by the simple truths that gay-marriage advocates offer. At Wednesday's hearing, Lauren Nocera, Jenn Steinfeld's partner, told the committee that it's "degrading" to have to testify every year. "It feels like begging."

But she said she comes because "it is my job as a member of this community that cares about justice, that cares about equality, that cares about respect."

She declared, "I'm here because I so deeply believe in a representative government and I believe in the democratic process and I believe that it is now time, after 10 years, to move this democratic process forward. We have been open, we have been honest, we have been courageous. Now it's your turn."

Will someone please listen to her?

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal's political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com /(401) 277-7638