--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 23, 2004
Marriage and Exclusion




To the Editor:

The "debate" on gay marriage ("Gay Marriage in the States," editorial, Feb. 18) is not a debate at all, because opponents have no case other than religious denunciation.

From a legal perspective, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman would mean that certain people are denied family health benefits and equal access to tax-filing status as married couples because their sexual orientation offends someone's religion.

From a human perspective, it would mean that marriage, instead of signifying a commitment between two people to share their lives, would be a state license for heterosexual intercourse.

Saying that marriage must be "defended" by excluding gays is like saying that voting rights must be defended by excluding blacks.

STEVEN TIGER
Brookhaven, Pa., Feb. 18, 2004



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top