To the editor:

I’m puzzled by all the talk of the state’s obligation to protect the “sanctity of marriage” by banning gay unions. Sanctity (“the quality or state of being holy or sacred”) is a purely theological term, lying entirely outside of government’s competency or concern. Because the Constitution obliges separation between government and religion, sanctity is a purely religious concept, and none of government’s business.

Kansas law already recognizes the fact that marriage is a civil matter and that sanctity is optional. Marriages do not require the participation of clergy. Further, many clergy are quite willing to perform gay marriages. Clergy-led gay marriage ceremonies obviously have more sanctity than civil ceremonies uniting heterosexual couples. Should civil ceremonies therefore be outlawed?

Religions disagree about the validity of gay marriage. One brings the “sanctity” argument into the gay marriage debate only at the expense of arguing that government must choose one religion over another. Sanctity-based arguments against gay marriage are patently unconstitutional insofar as they call for choosing one religious viewpoint over another.

John Rosen,

Lawrence