It’s difficult to understand how a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages can be viewed as anything but discriminatory. One segment of the population would be denied rights that the rest of us simply take for granted. I have yet to hear an argument in favor of this discrimination that did not rest solely on fear, misguided traditionalism, misleading statistics, or religious beliefs (which should be irrelevant, given the very necessary and well established separation of church and state).

In his letter to the editor on Wednesday, February 25, Bill Berish argues that homosexuals already have the right to marry. This is extremely misleading. Gay men and women have, in some limited cases, the right to a civil union. However, this is by no means the same as marriage, nor does it carry with it the same rights, benefits, and protections under the law to which heterosexual couples are implicitly entitled. No one is demanding that religious institutions be forced to recognize or officiate at such weddings, but civil unions are not even recognized by every state, much less by the federal government. Telling same-sex partners that they should just be quiet and accept what little they can get is, quite simply, discrimination, regardless of the motives behind it. (Remember, many of the same arguments against homosexual marriage were also used against interracial marriage not so long ago. Are we prepared to say that those unions have destroyed the sanctity of marriage?)

Gay men and women do not, as near as I can tell, want additional rights. They simply want equal protection under the law. How can denying them that be anything but discriminatory?