PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Legislation that would make Rhode Island the 10th state to allow gays and lesbians to marry still faces an uncertain future despite being overwhelmingly approved by the state House on Thursday night.
It could be weeks or even months before the Senate takes up the bill that would make the Ocean State the last in New England to recognize same-sex marriage, but supporters still celebrated the House vote.
Ken Fish, a gay man from Warwick, showed up at the Statehouse hours before the vote to ensure he got a seat in the crowded viewing gallery.
“I wanted to be here to see it,” said Fish, 70. “Go back 10 years, even five years, and I wasn’t sure we’d ever get here. We’re not done yet, but this is a big one.”
While the House has a gay marriage champion in Speaker Gordon Fox, who is gay, Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed opposes the legislation.
The 51-19 House vote came after an often emotional debate that touched on civil rights, religion and the nature of marriage.
“This has been a long journey,” Fox said after the vote. Fox supported same-sex legislation when it was first introduced in 1997. “Today is a great day. Today … we stand for equality, we stand for justice.”
Nine states and the District of Columbia now allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who supports gay marriage, urged quick action on the bill in the Senate. The governor, an independent, argues gay marriage is an issue of civil rights and the state’s quality of life, and said some people may choose other New England states over the Ocean State because of its stance on marriage.
“Now that the House has swiftly acted, I urge Senate leadership to ‘call the roll’ — for our economy, for our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors, and for history,” he said in a statement.
Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue will now turn their attention to the 38- member Senate, which has never voted on gay marriage legislation.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less