Beyond marriage.

As someone who is deeply ambivalent about all the recent emphasis on gay marriage, primarily became I object to the institution of marriage itself, I applaud Richard Goldstein's column "Civil Unions: The Radical Choice" [Left Hook, February 3]. We need more legally recognized possibilities beyond just "married" or "single." The concept of various types of civil unions for people of all sexual orientations is worth establishing.

With civil unions we have the chance to begin creating true alternatives to traditional marriage--alternatives that could be of great value to all people, not just gays. This does not have to be a second-best substitute but rather a better-than opportunity for relationships of the future.

Kerwin Schaefer, New Bern, N. C

I agree with Goldstein's assessment that flexible benefits (for single as well as coupled folks) and universal health care are the best path to equality. However, we will get neither marriage nor benefits if the so-called gay marriage amendment goes trough. Sneaky, conservatives present the tame-sounding "marriage amendment" as an innocuous matter of definitions. In fact, the amendment would take away the domestic-partner and civil union benefits. We need to quit p 'laying into conservative hands by referring to it as the "gay-marriage ban." Instead, we should call it what it is: the amendment to permanently ban equal benefits.

John Linscheid, Philadelphia, Pa.