In the Rhode Island Catholic newspaper, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin writes that I, Journal colleague Bob Kerr, and others who share our views fail to grasp the “long-lasting moral and spiritual harm caused by gay marriage.”

Kerr and I both have noted that life seems to go on as normal in Massachusetts despite same-sex weddings there.

I thought you might be interested in some of the language, images and arguments the bishop employs in his column, headlined: Why You Should Worry About “Gay Marriage.”

He admits the sky hasn’t fallen in Massachusetts. “But I don’t think the sky would fall if Massachusetts legalized prostitution, polygamy or incest either.”

I cringe when I see such words employed in any discussion of two men or two women who seek the joy, stability and respect offered by marriage.

The bishop asserts that “the onslaught” of gay weddings “should create more than a little anxiety for thoughtful and insightful people.” The dictionary defines “onslaught” as “a fierce attack.” But gay marriage is not an attack on anyone else or anyone else’s marriage.

Bishop Tobin writes that gay marriage implies public support of “immoral sexual activity.” He declares, “The State shouldn’t be placed in that position, and as a citizen of the State I don’t want it imposed on me and my conscience.”

I don’t consider this activity immoral. And no one is imposing on the bishop or his conscience. He doesn’t want to “ratify” this behavior by legalizing it. I deem gay marriage a ratification of equality. To deny gays a right to wed is to treat them as second-class citizens. That’s immoral.

The bishop says that if the state approves gay weddings, the church in time will be required to witness them: “Won’t happen, the activists promise. But experience says otherwise. Remember that the Church is ‘licensed’ by the state to officiate at weddings. And we’ve already seen how the state can impose its will on the Church. In Massachusetts, the Church was obliged to place children for adoption with gay couples…”

I can’t believe it would come to this regarding nuptials. But even if a state some day says a church can’t refuse to marry certain couples, I find it hard to envision many instances of gay couples knocking on a pastor’s door, listening to him sincerely and passionately explain why the church believes same-sex weddings violate God’s design and then shrugging off his comments and insisting, “Marry us anyway.”

The bishop asserts, “If gay activists continue to push their agenda in Rhode Island, like Massachusetts we’ll inevitably be drawn into a long-lasting, angry and divisive debate. We’ll have to navigate pickets, protests and petitions. [I wonder: Like pickets and protests at abortion clinics?] We’ll be tied up by expensive campaigns, legislative battles and judicial appeals. The struggle will consume an enormous amount of time and energy…”

Maybe. Yet I’m struck by how civil the debate was in Massachusetts and by how much it now has died down. After a Supreme Judicial Court ruling, gay weddings began in 2004. There ensued an intense battle over whether legislators should approve a referendum for a constitutional ban; the move failed last June.

I welcome the gay marriage debate in Rhode Island. In fact, I once wrote a column applauding Bishop Tobin for expressing his views in a state Supreme Court brief. I wish more people, wherever they stand, would speak up — respectfully — and with a willingness to listen and to learn.

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com