A letter writer states that, with the passing of 11 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage on Nov. 2, voters “affirmed what most Americans know intrinsically to be true.” [Vote Means Americans Favor Traditional Definition Of Marriage, Nov. 5 issue]

This perspective is a clear example of the bias toward an entire class of people — gays and lesbians — that exists in our society. For the good of America, we must eradicate this bias.

The writer offers tradition as support for denying gay couples equal treatment under the law, stating that “the only rational way to regard marriage is the way it has been regarded for thousands of years.”

This argument is unconvincing. Fortunately for the good of America, the writer wasn’t in charge when we progressed out of slavery, gave women the right to vote, began integrating schools, overturned the laws against interracial marriage and put an end to many other violations of rights that had been accepted by society. Instead, the argument sounds like one based not on tradition, but on religion. This argument, too, is unconvincing.

Marriage began as a religious institution. However, when our government adopted the term “marriage” and used it as a state-sanctioned classification to confer benefits, burdens, rights and responsibilities, “marriage” evolved into something other than a purely religious institution.

Denying gay couples the same benefits, burdens, rights, and responsibilities as non-gay couples, or denying gay couples the same nomenclature as non-gay couples (e.g. marriage), is a violation of the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state consists of two very different but complementary clauses. The first is the Free Exercise Clause. This means that you and I are free to practice our respective religious beliefs without interference from the government. I think that we all will agree that this is a very good thing. The second is the Establishment Clause. This means that the government may not endorse a particular religion, or favor one religion over another.

The religious institution of marriage is worthy of respect from us all, if nothing else than for the fact that each individual is free to practice religion as he or she sees fit. However, the government should not be denying equal treatment under the law based on a religious belief — that is a violation of the Establishment clause. The government-sanctioned institution of marriage, in its current form, is not religious-based for heterosexual couples — rightfully so.

Furthermore, denying gay couples the right to marry is a violation of the constitutional right to equal protection under the laws. It is fundamentally unjust for the government to sanction a relationship between a woman and me but not to sanction a relationship between a man and me — I am denied the equal protection of the law simply as a result of my (or my partner’s) gender. Furthermore, history has taught us that “separate but equal” is not equal. Thus, it is also fundamentally unjust to call non-gay couples “married” but to call gay couples anything other than “married” for any non-religious purpose.

And procreation is not a legitimate reason why same-sex couples should not be treated equally under the law. We all know heterosexual couples who, for a variety of reasons, do not procreate. I don’t think anyone would advocate that we single them out and not call them “married.”

Many gay couples have healthy, loving and committed relationships. These couples should not be denied equal protection of the law.

Craig McPike, Phoenix