01:00 AM EST on Friday, February 13, 2004

Perhaps a compromise on gay marriage can be found in the history of Western Europe.

When the Catholic Church was separated from the state in such countries as Portugal and Italy, the state stopped recognizing marriages performed by the church. So if these Europeans want a religious ceremony, they must also have a civil one.

By contrast, American priests, rabbis and ministers are licensed by the state to perform marriages (a convenience for those wanting a religious ceremony).

Perhaps the American practice has to end. If the courts are saying that all couples, regardless of who they are, are entitled to the rights of marriage granted by the state, then the religious ceremony should be separated from the civil. This would preserve marriage as defined by religious groups while opening it up to everyone. (It would mean that those having a relious ceremony would also need a civil ceremony.)

Amending constitutions to ban gay marriage is a slippery road to take, for it endangers the rights of all. Who and what might be next? Just because we do not like something or someone, we should not seek to legitimize that view -- even if it is in the majority -- by changing a state's constitution.

RICHARD A. MATERA

Providence