An ordinance that would make Toledo the second Ohio city to offer gay and unmarried couples the chance to register their "domestic partnership" passed through a city council committee yesterday and is set for a vote Tuesday.

The registry would not grant couples any direct benefits or bestow the legal rights of marriage.

But by paying the city a $25 fee, the couples would receive a certificate and cards to carry that proclaim their partnership.

City Law Director John Madigan told council's law and criminal justice committee that such a registry would not violate Ohio's voter-approved 2004 "Defense of Marriage" amendment, which defines marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman.

Mr. Madigan said he reached his conclusion based on an Ohio Supreme Court ruling in July in which the justices found that the marriage amendment does not preclude the state's domestic-violence law from applying to unmarried couples.

To violate the amendment, a statute would have to attempt to create a marriage substitute, and "this domestic partnership registry will not establish anything that approximates marriage," Mr. Madigan said.

The five members of the public who spoke during the hearing all were in favor of the registry. Some framed passing the ordinance as a civil rights issue.

"My partner and I are taxpayers. My partner and I are property owners. My partner and I are voters," said William Hill, of the Old West End. "What my partner and I are not is citizens of the first class."

"It may be a small step legislatively, but it's a monstrously large step for those who will benefit from it," Mr. Hill said.

Proponents also argued the registry would give a token of legitimacy to relationships, and that could help residents access health care and other benefits from employers that recognize domestic partnerships, such as Owens Corning and the University of Toledo.

Eleven couples, two of whom are opposite sex, have registered for domestic partner benefits since UT began offering them in early 2006, a university spokesman said.

City police and fire unions also have negotiated benefits in their collective bargaining agreements to take sick leave or funeral leave for domestic partners as they do for immediate family.

Councilman Joe McNamara, sponsor of the ordinance, said that having a registry could contribute to Toledo's economic growth by helping the city attract and retain the "creative class" - workers who are said to be generally socially liberal. The registry could also put Toledo "at the lead in social issues," Mr. McNamara said.

During the hearing Cindy Voller, a lawyer in East Toledo, said the city already has lost some unmarried couples.

"I have had clients who moved away from Toledo because they felt unprotected in our community," she said. "These are professional people who sought other cities that they felt were more accepting of their relationships."

The Cleveland suburb of Cleveland Heights became the first Ohio city with a domestic partnership registry after an initiative to create it passed in November, 2003, with 55 percent of the vote. Cleveland Heights has since registered 165 couples, some from as far away as California and who applied through the mail, she said.

A challenge to the registry by a Cleveland Heights councilman was rejected in 2004 by a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge.

Mr. McNamara said that he believes the majority of Toledo residents would support a domestic-partner registry, despite the statewide support three years ago for the amendment barring gay marriage.

"We're elected to make decisions that are in the best interests of Toledo, and I think this issue is," said Mr. McNamara, who declined to speculate about who might oppose his registry proposal at Tuesday's meeting.

"No one on council has told me they're going to not support this."