PROPOSITION 22 JUST UNCHARITABLE.

Byline: Gloria Fiorini

WHEN the mood hit the Apostle Paul, he wrote with great kindness, sublime devotion and an almost lyrical beauty. In fact, he gave the world one of the best definitions of love (which he called charity), in literary history.

``Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And, though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove all mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And, though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

``Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. Charity doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil. Charity rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth. Charity beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.'' (I Corinthians 13: 1-7 - King James Bible.)

Why is it that, when I hear about Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, I hear the echoes of brass sounding and cymbals tinkling?

This initiative would add language to the state constitution, stipulating that legal marriage exists only between a man and a woman. It is supposed to somehow protect us from the allegedly dire consequences of same-sex couples, who have been legally married in other states, moving to California and demanding the same rights as heterosexual married couples.

This proposition is so uncharitable, that it makes Scrooge look like Mother Theresa. It's just one more way for people who don't like homosexuals to stand up and show the rest of us how righteous (and straight) they are.

But its ramifications are far darker than puffed-up conservative posturing. It will, in effect, promote legalized bigotry against an already beleaguered group of people, who simply want the same rights as other American citizens.

In Florida and Virginia, similar ``defense of marriage'' laws have been used to deny committed couples not just services and benefits, but basic human rights, such as the right to visit and care for sick loved ones. Proposition 22 advocates swear that this will not happen in California, but we have only their word for it. If this initiative is passed, there is nothing to prevent such abuses from occurring.

``Defense of marriage'' laws also give a (hopefully unintentional) nod to hate groups, who could construe the situation to mean that they were right to begin with and the state government is finally catching on. In a culture where people are murdered simply because of their sexual orientation, do we really want to give violent bigots another excuse?

Aside from its mean-spirited ramifications, Proposition 22 is downright hypocritical. Its backers have stated that they are acting out of a concern for the woeful state of marriage in our country. It is true that the institution of marriage is on the decline. This country's divorce rate stands at a tragic 50 percent.

However, gay people are not responsible for this. The greatest threats to marriage come from within the institution itself.

Marriage is declining due to disillusionment, fear of commitment and a pervasive dearth of real love. If we seriously want to defend marriage, we need to concern ourselves with issues like spousal abuse and infidelity. We should teach our children, at an early age, about respect, responsibility and compassion.

Making same-sex couples the scapegoats for society's marital woes may make some conservatives feel that they've done something to preserve ``family values,'' but it completely sidesteps the real issue. The one thing that will not defend marriage in any way is the exact thing the California Defense of Marriage Act proposes - for us to set ourselves up as judges of who may marry and who may not.

It seems to me that a marriage is, in reality, only as sacred as the couple in question allows it to be. This means that a whole lot of marriages out there are about as sacrosanct as ``WWF Smackdown.'' Does Proposition 22 offer a way to prevent or heal any of the wounds married people are capable of inflicting on each other? No. It simply reinforces the notion that only marriage between a man and a woman is sacred, even if that man and woman routinely take claw hammers to each other. Isn't there a flaw here, somewhere?

It's only in modern times that love has become part of marriage and finally sanctified it. Today, marriage in America has nothing to do with securing political borders, expanding the family holdings or procuring heirs or cheap labor.

Modern marriage concerns a bond between two people who have chosen to journey through life, sharing the experience of living and learning from it together. A good modern marriage has nothing to do with anything but what Paul calls ``charity.''

Heterosexuals do not own the love concession.

Some gay couples have been together longer, through more awful adversity, than many straight couples. They have been faithful to and supportive of each other through financial disaster, personal tragedy, countless family problems, disease and disability, and the hatred and violence society heaps upon them.

These couples have, indeed, borne all things, believed all things, hoped all things and endured all things. These couples demonstrate a depth of love and commitment that many traditional relationships have never known. Such enduring relationships are truly sacred bonds, regardless of sexual orientation. Couples who have been together for 10, 15, 20 years and more should inspire us all.

Gay people are not insisting that heterosexual marriage be stricken from the books. They simply want their love and commitment to receive the same official recognition. The fact that they desire the right of legal marriage only proves that love is sacred to them, too.

Mean-spirited and hypocritical in design and effect, the California Defense of Marriage Act will not save bad marriages or create good ones. It will in no way defend marriage from anything that truly threatens it. It will only cause greater pain and suffering for a group of American citizens who have already suffered more than enough.

Proposition 22 needs to be seen for what it really is - a deafening din of tinkling cymbals and sounding brass.