"If the bill is adopted, then it can be used byopponents of the gay rights. It can be used tochill and defeat other legislation related to gayrights," Goshko said.
"It's a way of getting a major policy statementsaid that will have no effect. It sends a chillingmessage that you are not equal," he added.
Gay-rights advocates also charge that thebill's supporters are attempting to appease themwith changes in wording that do not change theeffect of the bill.
In a draft of the bill earlier this year,same-sex marriages were specifically banned.
But the current version defines a marriage as"a legal relationship between one man and onewoman," without mentioning same-sex marriage.
"The purpose of the second draft is todisguise, and sweep a little bit more under therug, anti-gay sentiment and language, but it makesno difference," Hyde said.
However, the bill's authors maintain the billwas meant to define marriage "positively," notprohibitively.
Beyond the concerns that the bill would send amessage of inequality, gay rights advocates areconcerned with getting the legal rights that gowith marriage. These include hospital visitation,spousal consent for medical treatment, taxbenefits, inheritance, pension benefits, andfamily medical leave.
These rights are not extended to same-sexcouples.
Cambridge was the first city in Massachusettswhere unmarried employees could get insurance andsame sex couples can register as partners.
Gay marriage has been in the spotlight since1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act was passedby Congress. This act denies federal recognitionof gay marriages, and permits states to ignore theunion of gay couples married in other states.
However, no states recognize gay marriage. Somehave come close, however; Vermont, Hawaii andAlaska are considering bills that would legallyrecognize it.
The next step in the process of the bill is forthe House committee to vote on whether the billshould go to the full House.