Vowing out.

Sounds like Jonathan Ranch ("Dire Straights," April) misses a key point on cohabitation. Judy and I suffered gut-wrenching, budget-busting divorces before we met. Then, 19 years ago when we (finally!) met, we spontaneously decided that marriage was a bad deal.

We call each other Lifemates. Our relatives and friends will tell you that we are as devoted and caring--as "married"--as any couple they know. The legal stuff? We are both legally certified as Guardians for each other and with Powers of Attorney, for emergencies. Passing up the expense of a will, we recently, at little cost at the county courthouse, put both our names as JTWROS (joint tenants, right. of survivorship) on our property, our home, and our vehicle.

We've got each other covered as we age, the way we want, with no heavy-duty legal strapping. Which brings me to our point: Love is magic, not legal. It is indescribably and deeply personal. We do not want the intrusion of a legal (or societal) anchor into our beautiful relationship. That hasn't worked for us. This has.

Barry G. Parsons and Judy Holder

Madison, Fla

Jonathan Rauch's article made persuasive argument that state-sanctioned marriage should encompass all couples seeking a license. I wish he had gone further.

The constitutional and legal arguments that support his thesis also support the proposition that those who purport to act as agents of the state in performing marriages should be required to recognize the equal right of all licensed couples to their services. If religious organizations wish to differentiate among validly licensed couples, they should refrain from acting as state agents by executing marriage certificates based on such licenses at their ceremonies. Otherwise, their refusal to marry certain licensed couples while agreeing to marry others may further ensnare them in the legal/political thicket.

John A. Rudy

Cooperstown, N.Y.