Ed Fitzpatrick highlights the reasoning that state Representative Michael Chippendale (R, Foster) offered for voting in favor of the recently passed civil unions bill, and that reasoning seems to me to be incomplete. I’ll note, first, that I come to much the same conclusion as Chippendale, although I favor civil unions that build a slate of rights and privileges from scratch, rather than with reference to marriage, which is what the legislation does:

15-3.1-6. Benefits, protections, and responsibilities. — A party to a civil union lawfully entered into pursuant to this chapter shall have all the rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law, whether derived from statutes, administrative rules, court decisions, the common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law as people joined together pursuant to chapter 15-3.

15-3 is the chapter that describes civil marriage, and as I’ve said before, if as a society we’re going to create a relationship that confers marriage-like rights, we ought to be explicit about what rights ought to be included and why. Marriage, as traditionally understood, still has the distinction that, by their nature, a husband and wife can create children. In terms of state law, it’s absurd for Fitzpatrick to call this legislation “a weak substitute for legalizing same-sex marriage,” because there are no benefits to marriage that it leaves out. It may, from his standpoint, have been morally timid not to merge the institutions, but the only sense in which the law, itself, can be said to be “weak” is that it doesn’t force religious people or organizations to eliminate their own understanding of marriage everywhere beyond the pulpit.
But back to Chippendale:

Chippendale noted he’d voted against the civil-unions bill in committee and that people quoted Scripture in testifying against the bill.
“But you know what?” he said. “At the end of the day, if my Lord Jesus Christ were here, he would say what he already has said: ‘What you do to the least of my children you do to me.’ And who in God’s name am I to stand here and push a button that would injure one of my brothers and sisters? As a man of faith, I don’t have that right.”
Chippendale, a Catholic whose district extends to Foster, Glocester and Coventry, voted for the bill, saying, “I’m going to have a lot of people to answer to in my district. But I’m going to say to them: What you do to the least of God’s children you do to him.”

Who is Chippendale to push a vote button in the General Assembly? Well, he’s an elected representative voting on an issue of public policy, and if a society cannot determine through representative democracy that one relationship is different from another in a key way that suggests different benefits, responsibilities, and codification in the law, then there really is no right to self governance.
What’s particularly objectionable about Chippendale’s reasoning is that it is about as close to theocracy as anybody is apt to get in our time and place. The tolerance of Catholic Christianity does not negate our rights to shape our society in a way that has proven to be the most effective at growing prosperity, decreasing poverty, increasing liberty, and maintaining peace. We’ll all have different notions of what that requires, but to insist that setting some small space aside in our society and in the law for the particular human coupling that tends toward the creation of children is hardly injury to our brothers and sisters. Indeed, to the extent that doing otherwise further erodes the institution of marriage, right down to the underpinnings that any traditionalist reform would require, such actions truly do harm “the least of God’s children”; they just aren’t there in front of us holding protests and applying rhetorical pressure..