You are consistently using the terms "member of the family" so I have to assume you got them from somewhere. "Member of the family" has no legal force in itself. If they were to change "pet" to "person" then we'd have a problem. We all have legal duties toward other people, these don't exist for animals as long as you call them anything else. This shift in language is not something that gives human rights to non-humans automatically. If that were the goal then the terms wouldn't be so ambiguous, "member of the family" doesn't mean "person" and in fact it doesn't mean much of anything at all, as I said, in or of itself. Animals don't have the same rights as people, not even in Rhode Island. I would be opposed to any law that gives animals the same rights as people but I don't think that is the effect of these changes in terminology. Remember we're talking about a country that doesn't protect it's own people from exploitation effectively through legislation, it will be a hell of a long time before anyone can do that for animals. It's a scary thought but it's a long way off.
I feel a little light headed... maybe you should drive...