Mr. Elerick's commentary, "On Rites and Rights" (Dec. 18), changes little of the debate on marriage.

Procreation? Nothing in Prop. 8 requires a married couple to have children or even be their biological parents. If this justification was credible, then all step-parents, adoptive, infertile and elderly couples would be barred from marriage. Mature adults aspire to more than biology to start a family, no less a marriage.

Gender? Qualifying a married couple based on genitals certainly debases the institution. If respecting gender behavior distinguishes marriage, many clergy could be prohibited from officiating and some prominent men would be banned for their lack of respect toward wives and women.

History? Elerick's fictional litany of American history is feeble. Many founders of this nation were deists with rational beliefs in a god — nothing like fundamentalists, or "Christians," today.

Scripture? Thomas Jefferson wrote about the Bible, "There is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills" (Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Adams on Christian scriptures, Jan. 24, 1814). Our state Constitution is worthy of a gem from biblical principles, not a pile of manure.

Sanctity? Founders of America put a set of rights in our Constitution that includes protection from religious beliefs and freedom to practice any religion or none at all. They were emphatic that government should not establish or give preference to any one, or even a majority religion. That is what they fled from in the old world.

Rights? Mr. Elerick says: "The U.S. Constitution is silent on marriage." He mistakes his own deafness for silence. Absent "marriage" in the Constitution, throughout our history case law defines rights and obligations of those wed. Privacy, autonomy and liberty are marital rights.

Morality? Elerick cannot see democratic principles in the Constitution as different from moral values in scripture. He would replace civil law with religious scripture. Such a change indicates a loss of faith, at best.

Tradition? That failed as an argument to prohibit emancipation from slavery, women's suffrage and granting citizenship. With marriage traditions of polygamy and incest shed over time, the gender of a couple is inconsequential today.

A long history of tradition ended with the election of a new president. Barack Obama marks a new beginning — an end to inequality, barriers to full civic life and denial of the pursuit of happiness for all.

Choice? Religion is a personal choice. To use Elerick's words: Are people within their "rights" to propose laws limiting the extent of his personal behavior? I do not think so either. No one asks Bruce Elerick to change who he is, his personal beliefs or to participate in their marriage. He need only step aside as progress passes by.

— Mr. Leslie DeFacio, Newlywed after 33 years engaged