To the editor:

Passing an amendment banning same-sex unions will not preserve the religious institution of marriage. Subjecting marriage to more government regulations will only further weaken the authority of religious leaders to determine the character and conditions of marriage.

Completely separating the institution of marriage, as a religious sacrament, from state licensing of civil unions is a more effective alternative to safeguard the traditional concept of holy matrimony. Religious authorities would then be free to expound and enforce God’s laws about marriage and who is qualified for it, while governments would enforce and adjudicate only the human laws regulating civil unions.

The real concern of the amendment supporters is to express their distaste for homosexuality and their belief that God forbids it. A constitutional amendment is not the appropriate medium for conveying those sentiments. By raising the red herring of “protecting the sanctity of marriage,” proponents are only trying to disguise their dissatisfaction with the concept of equal justice under the law. The amendment invites discrimination against a specific segment of society and makes them second-class citizens. It’s shockingly un-American.

In the not-so-distant past, Protestantism, abolitionism and women’s suffrage were all denounced as sins by the conservatives of the day. Conservatives were wrong then and they are wrong now. Most Americans are acquainted with the idea that, if you expect fair treatment under the law for yourself, you must be willing to accord it to people that you may privately disapprove of.

Mark Stone,

Lawrence