To the editor:

State Sen. Phil Journey, proponent of a ban on gay marriage, referred to the danger of “activist judges” as a reason for amending our state constitution. The term “activist judges” is a false characterization. Our laws are written as general principles. It is the work of judges to interpret these general principles as they apply to newly developing circumstances. As gays and lesbians have come out of the shadows, some judges have realized that discriminating against us is illegal. Such judges are holding America to the standard set by our ideals, not acquiescing to the ugly reality of bigotry.

The vote in our state Senate on Jan. 13 is one example of that ugly reality. That vote in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage represents the imposition of a specific fundamentalist Christian belief on a heterogeneous society. Majority rule is a generally accepted principle, but our constitution ensures equal rights so that a bigoted majority cannot tyrannize a minority. I do not believe a ban on gay marriage will endure. This campaign by the radical religious right is not only immoral and wrong, it is a waste of time.

Maggie Childs,

Lawrence