A few days ago, while I was busy doing wife and mommy things, I heard something that made me pause. "We are no longer alone!" declared the newscaster. It was the pleasure in her voice that got me to stop long enough to find out that California had lifted the ban on gay marriage, joining us (the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) in legalizing this simple civil right. I had to get on with my tasks, but I shared her pleasure at the news.

I'm not sure why I feel as passionately as I do about gay rights. I am, after all, a heterosexual woman. Sure, I have gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual friends, but if the matters I'm willing to fight for were determined by my friends, I'd be more likely to be passionate about feminism (I am, in that I am a gender egalitarian) or class issues.

Perhaps my drive on this issue is in reaction to the vehemence of the opposition. While I and many others celebrated the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in November 2003, there were those who took to the streets with protest signs. Politicians who didn't agree with the decision rushed to block it, or at least lessen marriage to "civil unions". The president of the United States of America declared my home the "land of activist judges" (never have I been so proud to claim an attempted insult) and wanted to change the Constitution to make gay marriage illegal. He wanted to use the Constitution to deny a group civil rights.

The obnoxious slogan, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" became a sort of battle cry. And that's what it comes down to: the perception that some have of God. Then again, is it really that when many who have no particular religious affiliation feel "uncomfortable" about gays and want to deny them certain rights as well? Or is it, rather, that the Bible comes in handle to support a certain prejudice?

Leviticus 20:13 reads: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

That is certainly a strong condemnation! But if one gazes up just three verses it reads, If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. While most of us agree that adultery is a bad thing, but we don't see people either trying to put them to death or deny them civil rights.

That's the Old Testament, of course, and those quick to use verse 13 to condemn homosexuals tend to want a kinder verse in dealing with other sin.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Much better. Less bloodthirsty. The sin is condemned, but the punishment is kindly left in the hands of God. Note, however, that no one is trying to ban marriage for fornicators or adulterers.

Some opponents to gay marriage take religion out of the argument and look instead to history and tradition. They tell us that for 5000 years, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Really? Where? Without doing any research at all, I could recall polygamy being acceptable among the ancient Hebrews and gay marriage part of ancient Asian cultures. Actually doing the research turns up interesting facts.

Marriage between men existed legally in the Roman Empire until outlawed by emperors Constantius and Constans in AD 342. (And there is evidence of it being accepted/blessed by the church far later http://www.lezbeout.com/ancientgaymarriageoftwomalesaints.htm ) In ancient Greece (up through 146 BC, so well within the 5000 years) a man in his 30s would marry a teen-male or female-after getting the permission of the father. While same-sex marriages may not (of course, they may have...this research is not exhaustive) have taken place all over China, there were lesbian commitment ceremonies in the Guangdong province (this apparently lasting into the last 80 years until the early 1900s) and male marriages in Fujian province. The examples go on from Native American/Canadian First Nation cultures, though African and on to Japan, not only within the last 5000 years, but within the last few hundred.

Clearly, history and tradition are not a reason to deny same-sex marriage. From there, the arguments only get worse. "It'll destroy the institution of marriage!" How? I can't speak for the heterosexuals who make this argument, but I for one won't divorce my husband and marry another woman just because it's legal in my state.

"If we allow it, we'll eventually have to allow polygamy and bestiality!" Um...what? Polygamy, as in several grown adults choosing to be in a relationship, isn't something I consider to be my business. I'm not necessarily against it, but it doesn't work as an argument against same-sex marriage. Polygamy as practiced by any of the groups that force young women to marry is and should always be illegal on grounds of child abuse. And it still has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. The bestiality bit is too stupid to dignify.

"Marriage is a sacred institution and religion frowns on same-sex unions." Where to begin? Those who use this argument have jumped from denying marriage to same-sex couples and now deny it to all those who chose to marry outside of church/temple/what-have-you. We reject your denial. And who's religion? Not only does this stomp all over the separation between church and state, the religions, sects, and denominations who are against same-sex marriages have no right to speak for those who are not.

And it really does come down to rights. I take it for granted that if something happens to my husband, the hospital will notify me. I not only get to see him if his condition is so serious that they admit "family only," but also if the worst happens and he is incapacitated while life and death decisions need to be made, I will make them. Without documentation stating otherwise, I inherit if he dies. We share medical insurance. The legal benefits go on and on, not to mention the emotional benefit of the simple recognition that this man is my husband, not my boyfriend or some other lesser relation.

Same-sex marriage isn't about granting special rights to gays and lesbians. It's about granting them the same rights that every other adult can take for granted. Whether one believes that they are born that way and there's nothing wrong with it or that homosexuality is a sin, the morality of the situation should be between the individuals and their God. And no, there shouldn't be a vote on the legal aspects. The reason why we have state and federal Supreme Courts and Justices is because Joe-smoe-off-the-street should not (without the proper schooling-who says we Joe Smoes aren't smart?) interpret constitutional law.

During the protests against the Massachusetts ruling, there were counter protests as well. They interviewed one man who's words struck a deep cord in me: "If it were left to the people when I was a child growing up Virginia, I never would have known desegregated school s. Civil rights should not be up for popular vote."

Massachusetts and California uphold these civil rights, and we are not alone. The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa and Spain also uphold these rights fully, while many other nations and states extend rights through same-sex civil unions. It's a quibbling over a word, granting marriage rights without granting the right to marriage, but it's a start. We are not alone.