But the column missed one very important point, which is excusable because there are so many other things vying for our attention these days (spinning the Haditha story, trashing Geno's owner Joe Vento, trying to figure out what is eating Jannie Blackwell). It's the simple fact that although the GOP's push to ban gay marriage might be reprehensible to gays and their supporters, there is one aspect of the issue that deserves legitimate and, dare I say it, respectful discussion: religious freedom.

It's all well and good to say that Bush and his minions are acting like "doodyheads." It's easy to ridicule the move to ban gay marriage as the last gasp of an administration that's holed up at the Alamo and sees Santa Ana charging forward (ah, those invading Mexicans again). And yes, it does appear somewhat strange to have your knickers in a twist over an issue that has less immediacy than the increase in gas prices or is much less compelling than the body count in Iraq.

But it's also ridiculous to imply that same-sex marriage isn't a threat to the nuclear family but that the war in Iraq is. This is an argument Joe Carcione, the "Green Grocer," would have eschewed. It's mixing apples and oranges. I suppose the theory is that two men living together in wedded bliss won't change the nature of society but war will. Right on the second point, wrong on the first.

It's intellectually dishonest to criticize the Senate vote on the Marriage Amendment (which, not surprisingly, didn't pass) without also examining the repercussions that legalizing same-sex unions might have on those whose faith compels them to reject the prospect. Like the editor, I'm a Roman Catholic. Though I'll never be canonized and my house is built of (bulletproof) glass, my faith teaches me that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. I am fully aware that the world is not full of papists and that there are dissenters within my own church. But the simple fact is that my religion teaches me to reject gay marriage.

The response is: "Well then, don't get married to a woman, Christine." That's pithy and unnecessary at the moment (since I'm not even dating). The response might also be: "Who gives a damn about what your religion teaches since we live in a secular, pluralistic society and your religious views shouldn't impinge on the constitutional rights of others."

And there's the rub. We are talking about the intersection of rights and privileges when we deal with same-sex marriage. If gay marriage is legalized and the interstate domino effect takes place, Massachusetts won't be the only colony faced with a constitutional crisis.

Case in point: Several months ago, Catholic Charities of Boston decided to end its adoption services instead of agreeing to place children with same-sex couples. The organization, which should have been given a conscientious waiver under the First Amendment, was denied that exemption and found itself between the Rock of Peter and a hard place. Because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts by judicial fiat, Catholic Charities was considered to be in violation of the state Constitution. So now, a religious organization with few or no ties to the secular government is the first domino to fall. If gay marriage is legalized nationally, there will be others.

What of the evangelical who sincerely believes that same-sex unions are wrong and writes an op-ed about it for his local paper. Will he be prosecuted under a hate-speech statute?

My point is this: People of good will can disagree on the issue of same-sex unions. Personally, I don't think we should be playing around with the Constitution in the first place. But it's wrong to underplay the more serious aspects of the issue.

That would make you a doodyhead.

Christine M. Flowers is an attorney in Center City.