Thursday, September 27, 2007

Although The Post is to be lauded for its stand in support of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples ["A Defeat for Gay Marriage," editorial, Sept. 22], its criticism of the American Civil Liberties Union for opposing a compromise involving civil unions was misguided.

Many see civil unions as "separate but equal" -- the same rights, just with a different name. Even if you consider that "separate but equal" has been out of vogue since, oh, 1954, civil unions are certainly not marriage, nor do they provide the same benefits as marriage.

Are those members of The Post's editorial board who are married willing to exchange their marriage licenses for civil union certificates? Or do they know that civil unions are not only separate but also unequal and therefore inadequate?

And can we please stop referring to "gay marriage" as if this is some kind of alternative to "regular marriage?" We're not talking Coke and Diet Coke here.

Just as couples today do not get either a same-race or interracial marriage license, same-sex couples don't want a kind of marriage license that is different from heterosexual couples'. We just want access to the same marriage licenses as everyone else.

BOB DARDANO

Washington

Regarding the Sept. 19 front-page article "Md.'s Highest Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage":

I have a few questions for the judges on the Maryland Court of Appeals who voted against granting marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.

What exactly is the state's interest in heterosexual procreation? Is there a population shortage we should be aware of? And what are they doing to make sure that only married heterosexuals procreate? If the primary argument against allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is that they will not procreate on their own, what measures do the judges hope to put in place to ensure that non-procreating heterosexuals are not allowed to marry?

DAN KAUFMAN

Arlington