Texas marriage amendment defies god's principle of love.

We write as religious leaders, with the simple, straightforward message that God loves all God's children--people of every race, religion and nationality, and, yes, homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. We think, moreover, that one of the great things about America is its guarantee of equal rights for all.

On Nov. 8, the voters of Texas will be asked to approve an amendment to the state constitution that would enshrine bigotry in our foundational document.

At first glance, Proposition 2 appears simply intended to define marriage as involving only one man and one woman. In our opinion, that is not really what this amendment is about. Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages now, so there is no need to ban them.

Although the first clause defines marriage as heterosexual, it is the amendment's second clause that says something new, different and, we believe, prejudicial: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

This would have the effect of giving some Texans fewer civil rights than others.

There is a sacred component to marriage, sanctioned by God; but there is "also a secular component to marriage, which confers important rights and obligations whether one is religious or not.

When people marry, they become responsible for each other. If one partner is ill, the other has visitation rights in the hospital and, if the other is unable to speak for him or herself, medical decision-making rights. When one dies, the other has the deciding voice in making funeral and burial arrangements and has important inheritance rights. Married couples take these and other rights for granted.

Gays and lesbians do not have these same rights, and Proposition 2 would preclude them from having them.

Heterosexuals may be similarly affected. Imagine loving someone, being a partner for years or decades, and then being told that you cannot visit in the hospital, decide how funeral arrangements are made or have the stone inheritance rights as others.

Some states, trying to avoid the religious issue of whether a marriage can revolve two people of the same gender, have sought to solve that problem by allowing civil rations for homosexual couples, intending to give the same civil rights to all. This is a worthy solution to the problem of how to protect the rights of two adults in a committed relationship. That's why it would be a bitter pill to know that a homosexual couple's sincere commitment to love, care for and abide with each other will be actively undermined by the state constitution.

George W. Bush, when running for president, said that he opposed gay marriage but that state legislatures should be left "free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

The point, again, is to allow couples who wish to make long-term, loving commitments to have the same rights and responsibilities that others have. The constitutional amendment would take that right away.

Whether any given religious community will bless this relationship is a matter of religious freedom--but whether the same-sex couple will have equal rights is a matter of justice. "The proposed constitutional amendment is not merely anti-gay marriage--it is anti-equal rights.

We were shocked and dismayed when Gov. Rick Perry suggested that gays who do not like having their rights denied in Texas should move elsewhere. He has made this a matter of hatred for a targeted segment of our society, not merely a matter of civil rights.

We are deeply saddened by the fact that Proposition 2 is being promoted in the name of religion, which should be a source of love, compassion and understanding rather than a source of rejection and hatred. We want people to know that there are religious leaders who support equal rights for all.

The Bible makes the radical assertion that all are created ill the image of God When Moses in Leviticus 19:18 and Jesus in Matthew 19:19 say that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, they meant "all our neighbors, not just some of them.

Thank God that the biblical ethic of love and justice has continued to advance, moving us beyond our hatred of people who are not like ourselves. Our biblical and post-biblical traditions demonstrate progression from exclusivity to inclusivity, as the Abrahamic promise advances from a narrow tribal understanding to Gods promise of light for all the nations in the prophets and beyond.

We believe that this movement of God's Spirit did not end when the last words of Scripture were written but rather continues to this day, tearing down barriers of injustice and small-mindedness that make it impossible for us to practice the biblical ethic of love.

From the beginning, America at its best has been part of that progress as we declare certain truths to be self-evident, including that all men (and women) are created equal. 0x212exans should not be trying to turn back the clock to reverse it.

We will vote against Proposition 2 on Nov. 8.

Ralph Mecklenburger is rabbi at Beth El Congregation in Fort Worth. Kevin Kanouse is bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod. The Rev. Fritz Ritsch serves St. Stephen's Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth. This commentary first appeared in the Fort Worth, Texas, Star Telegram.