Friday, February 20, 2004; Page A24

The Constitution is not a road map for personal behavior. It is a document establishing regulations and procedures for the U.S. government, most often limiting government intrusion in the lives of citizens. One reads again and again variations on the phrase "the right of the people . . . shall not be infringed."
\t
To insert a stance defining marriage into the Constitution is to alter the purpose of the Constitution ["Bush Plans to Back Marriage Amendment; Constitution Would Specify Man, Woman," front page, Feb. 11].

This approach has been tried once, and it doesn't work. The one amendment adopted for the purpose of regulating personal behavior -- the 18th Amendment prohibiting the sale and transport of alcohol -- was a miserable failure.

This is neither to support nor challenge gay marriage. It is simply to say that the Constitution is the wrong vehicle for opposition or support.

SUSAN LEHMAN

Rockville

3. (Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it\nillegal for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S.), or\n(should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage)? Do you feel\nthat way strongly or somewhat?\n\n \tSupport amend (net)\n                    Strongly Somewhat\n                                  Each state own (net)\n                                            Strongly Somewhat No opinion\n2/22/04 \t46 \t38 \t8 \t45 \t31 \t15 \t9\n1/18/04 \t38 \tna \tna \t58 \tna \tna \t3

It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those \ufffdactivist judges\ufffd, who, by the way, gave Mr Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that \ufffdthe Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code\ufffd. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.

[...]

Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be \ufffdmarried\ufffd. But that is to dodge the real question\ufffdwhy not?\ufffdand to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?

[...]

The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage\ufffda so-called civil union\ufffdis not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a \ufffdmarriage\ufffd. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash\ufffdof the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.