MARRIAGE IS ABOUT MORE THAN SEXUALITY.

Byline: Jonathan Dobrer Local View

WHETHER to permit or forbid gay marriage is a hot issue in California. A conservative religious group intent on ``saving marriage'' demonstrated here in Los Angeles on Valentine's Day. Meanwhile, a liberal religious group sent 3,500 Valentines to the governor affirming their commitment to ``stand on the side of love.''

As a self-proclaimed liberal, I believe that marriage is a civil right. Church and state sometimes act capriciously toward this right. Once upon a too-recent time, blacks could not marry whites in many states. Only the constitutional doctrine of ``full faith and credit'' forced Southern states to accept the validity of marriages from outside, against their own anti-miscegenation laws.

We have progressed to the point that many conservatives say they are willing to have civil unions, so gays and lesbians can have the right to pass property, survivorship benefits and health care. Everything but marriage.

I know many good people who are not homophobes but are discomforted by the idea of gay marriage. It is the word ``marriage'' they feel is wrong, and we ought to stick to our traditional definition, while giving gays and lesbians some other form of recognition. I understand this linguistic nostalgia, but it is not historically accurate.

In the Bible marriage was not exclusively between two people. It was often between a man and several women. The purpose was pleasure, property and procreation.

``AH HA'' The traditionalist responds, ``Exactly! Marriage is about procreation and since same-sex couples can't procreate, they shouldn't get married.'' Then women who, as the Bible says of Sarai, ``Are past the age of women,'' and men with vasectomies should be prevented from marrying. Is the marriage license only a permit to multiply?

We certainly do not want marriages to be valid only when children are either present or contemplated. As my old friend Herb said when asked if he and Robert, his partner of 46 years, had adopted their two kids, ``We tried for years, but finally had to adopt.''

I think many people who object both on behalf of church and state have it backward. The state does have some legitimate interest regarding property and benefits, but none in terms of sacraments.

It is not the state's business who performs a same-sex celebration. The state should neither compel nor deny clergy the right to do their rites. Making gay and lesbian unions legal would not force rabbis, priests and ministers to perform such ceremonies.

From where does the fear come that clergy will be dragged from their chapels and forced to martyr themselves by performing rites that they personally consider to be wrong? I know of no such precedent. The law allows mixed marriages but doesn't compel clergy to do them. How is this different?

While I try to be open to people who disagree with my position, I truly do not understand the argument that same-sex marriage somehow dilutes the institution of marriage. Our society has done plenty to cheapen the brand and most of it by heterosexuals. How loving and committed gays or lesbians living together and creating homes and families threatens anyone is beyond me.

There is also the slippery-slope argument. If we legalize gay and lesbian marriage how about polygamy or polyandry? But no one is seriously posing simultaneous multiple marriages. We plan on keeping them traditionally serial - one spouse at time. The same holds for the canard that gay marriage will open floodgates for marriage with pets. Since a marriage license witnesses to the informed consent of both partners, children, inebriates and animals do not qualify. Hence, no floodgates opened nor slopes made ever more slippery.

Amending the Constitution to restrict rights and freedom is almost without precedent. The only exception was the Volsted Act creating Prohibition. We all know how well that worked out. Our Constitution and its amendments are designed to limit the power of government and increase the personal freedoms of the people. In this, I am a traditionalist and a strict constructionist.

Finally, on a personal note: Having married off three sons, in this age where the groom's family now shares the financial burden, I see no reason why gays and their parents should be let off the hook for renting halls, buying flowers, fighting with caterers and being extorted by party planners. Gay marriage is humane, kind and, for the economy, well, ``fabulous.''