Some conservative and religious groups say a recently introduced proposal by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., to amend the Constitution banning same-sex marriages is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

The views of many who believe homosexuality is a moral issue need to be respected. However, it is a dangerous precedent to allow the Constitution to be used as a means to will the morals of a majority over those of a minority.

Ironically, conservatives argue that to allow gays the right to marry is to allow the rights of a minority to infringe on the moral and legal sanctity of the many. But it's not the gay minority that is introducing a constitutional amendment to guarantee limits of freedom. Gay and lesbian advocates argue that such an amendment would, for the first time, alter a Constitution that was designed to protect rights, not restrict them.

It can be argued that marriage is a religious institution, thus possibly meriting protection under separation of church and state. However, marriage is not a strictly religious ceremony or institution. Traditional marriage includes civil ceremonies and certain rights under the law not enjoyed by same-sex couples.

Some would argue that the sanctity of marriage has already eroded over the last three or four decades, with increased divorce rates and cases of single motherhood. What the institution of marriage needs is committed couples, of any sex.

If two persons love one another and are willing to share the burden and happiness of the other, they should be granted the right to wed, with all the rights that go with it. Gay couples are currently denied inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights and tax benefits, among others.

Irresponsible behavior, like that displayed by Britney Spears' recent one-night misadventure, does more to annul the values of marriage than allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

Since yesterday, 2,841 gay and lesbian couples have taken their marriage vows in the city hall of San Francisco. The couples flocked to the city by the bay after Mayor Gavin Newsom, in defiance of state law, began issuing marriage licenses last Thursday. Conservative groups scrambled in a failed attempt to block the marriages immediately, arguing California's constitution defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Newsom's rebuke at state law comes on the heels of a November court ruling in Massachusetts that struck down that state's laws banning same-sex marriages, saying the state discriminated against homosexuals.

While it remains to be seen whether these new marriages will survive in court, it turns up the heat on a debate that could become a political lightning rod in the presidential campaign. President Bush has indicated his conditional support for the measure to constitutionally ban gay marriages, while Democratic frontrunner Sen. John Kerry has been accused of flip-flopping on the issue. Apparently bowing to conservative groups, Bush indicated in his State of the Union speech that he would support, "if necessary," a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, upholding traditional marriage from the rulings of "activist" judges.

Kerry has said he is against same-sex marriages, but has voted against an outright ban. At the same time, he is against changing the U.S. Constitution. Kerry said he may consider banning them in Massachusetts, as long as the language allows for civil unions, which provide for fewer legal rights.

In the end, as important the issue is to homosexuals and those opposed to their right to marry, the sanctity of the Constitution is what's really at stake. It is a document that represents the quest for and commitment to liberty.

The liberty we know today has evolved from more than two centuries of political and social struggle. It is not something that should be squandered by the existing political climate. To alter it with the abject purpose to deny liberty to a few, we sacrifice the principles that laid the foundation of our nation.