Letter: Have same name for same rights

Thursday, March 4, 2004 | 9:01 a.m.

In his Feb. 26 Where I Stand column, "Amendments unworthy," Brian Greenspun says that all the gay community needs to do to prevent an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage is to accept a word other than "marriage" for the same rights and privileges of marriage.

While I believe his attempt at compromise is honorable, I'd like to point out that the argument for civil "unions" instead of civil "marriage" is inherently flawed. It makes no sense to extend the same rights under two different names. You would only do that to deceive or confuse or to abuse the legal system to codify social inequality. This is why the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court said separate but equal does not work, rejected civil unions, and said only the word "marriage" would ensure true equality.

As to "Bible Belters" for whom the word marriage is a "red flag": The issue here is civil marriage, not religious marriage. No religious institution will have to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. And those "normal folks who believe in their traditions" -- well, if their traditions dictate heterosexuality they can just keep right on marrying people of the opposite sex.

LIZ CRONKHITE